Good morning everyone. My name is Elliot Payne. I'm the president of Minneapolis City Council. And before we convene our meeting, we have the presentation of honorary resolutions. I'll invite Council member Vita up to recognize No Menthol Sunday. Good morning. Welcome everyone. Good morning. Good morning. So, I am so honored to be here today to acknowledge No Menthol Sunday. A lot Not a lot. Every single person in this group standing here with me today, I believe we started recognizing No Menthol Sunday in Minneapolis 17 years ago. And so, um a much younger version of myself worked with these women in the black churches to educate and to also provide resources to those affected by tobacco and tobacco companies. And so, this has always been a thing in the month of May where we declare every Sunday in the month of May as No Menthol Sunday. And so, with that, I'll read the resolution declaring May 17th, 2026 as No Menthol Sunday in the city of Minneapolis. Whereas, on Sunday, May 17th, 2026, the city of Minneapolis proudly joins the Minnesota Menthol Coalition, faith leaders, friends, and families in celebrating No Menthol Sunday. And whereas, No Menthol Sunday is a national day of observance led by the Center for Black Health and Equity and supported locally by the Minnesota Menthol Coalition and churches in Minneapolis. And whereas, No Menthol Sunday is an opportunity for faith leaders to raise awareness about the negative health impacts of using commercial tobacco including e-cigarettes and menthol products and highlighting ways to improve health outcomes for Black Americans and whereas [snorts] for decades the tobacco industry has deliberately targeted black communities especially kids with marketing for menthol cigarettes in the 1950s less than 10% of black smokers use menthol cigarettes and today that number is over 85%. And whereas menthol cigarettes are major reason why commercial tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death among Black Americans claiming 45,000 black lives every year. And [snorts] whereas menthol is a chemical added to cigarettes and other tobacco products including e-cigarettes that creates a cooling sensation. Tobacco companies intentionally design menthol products to be more appealing to youth and new smokers, more addictive and more difficult to quit. And whereas Minneapolis was one of the first cities in the nation to restrict the sale of menthol and other flavored tobacco products to promote healthier kids and communities targeted by the tobacco industry including black residents. And whereas we recognize that racial health disparities are not the consequence of individual habits or poor choices but rather reflect centuries of systemic racism that we need to confront with increased access to quality health care and resources. And whereas we invite tobacco commercial tobacco users to seek the necessary resources they need to be successful including free quit help available through Minnesota's Quit Partner which offers one-on-one coaching and helpful tools 24/7. And whereas one year ago the FDA proposed rules to prohibit menthol cigarettes and flavor cigars. Once implemented, this policy would protect kids from tobacco addiction, advance health equity, and save lives, especially among black Americans. Whereas we must continue to uplift one another and advocate for a healthier future and put health above tobacco industry profits. Now, therefore, be it resolved, the mayor and the city council do recognize May 17th, 2026 as No Menthol Sunday throughout the city of Minneapolis and commends the observance of to all its city's residents. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Thank you. Thank you. I want to make sure that you understand that as before I finished college, they were passing out menthol cigarettes and they were in the communities years ago passing out little packs of three or four menthol cigarettes and making it attractive to smoke cigarettes. And now we now have a way to avoid that. So, I thank all of you. Thank you so much for letting us have this time. Absolutely. Thank you. >> [applause] >> We just don't want to stop with the city of Minneapolis and we thank our mayor, the city council, and especially council member Vita. We want this to be statewide. So, we encourage you for the next governor to make sure that this is observed throughout the state of Minnesota. Amen. >> [laughter] >> All right. Thank you so much. We've said it all. Thank you. All right. No, we're going to get a group photo really quickly. Okay. Oh, yes, ma'am. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. We've been joined by Council Member Warren. Oh. Right here. She's on this side. The other way. Right here. Oh, I thought somebody slipped in and I In between the two. Okay, let's squeeze in. Well, you know, when we squeeze in, I'm always looking like I squeezed in. I'm sorry. That's okay. That's their fault. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next, we will welcome up Council Member Warsame to recognize Randy Hager. You're welcome. See you all later. I think my stomach is full. Aw, that's adorable. All right. Good morning, everyone. We have the opportunity of recognizing one of our phenomenal staff members here, Randy Hager, for his 18 years of service to the City of Minneapolis. Right, right. There we go. So, me and Council President Payne is going to read the resolution and then pass the mic off for some words. All right. So, whereas Randy Hager commenced employment with the City of Minneapolis on November 6, 2007, starting with 7 years of service as a accountant two, supporting eight general fund departments along with their federal grants. He then supported the water Enterprise Fund for four years, two years as a counting manager in the public works capital accounting area and six years as a finance manager overseeing the full public works accounting group and managing other areas of the controllers division under the under the direction of the city controller. And whereas Mr. Hager stepped up magnifi- magnificently when the city was without a regular controller and deputy controller continuing the quarterly financial reporting to the council. And whereas Mr. Hager guided the accounting the 487 million dollar public works department and also was a key leader in the city's public works 323 million dollar capital budget, was also responsible for overseeing the payroll accounting for the city's entire workforce and managed the accounting relationship between the city and the Minneapolis building commission. And Whereas Mr. Hager took the lead role in the Roof Depot's projects accounting and financial reporting. And whereas Mr. Hager participated in enterprise endeavors including assisting with various staff recruiting and hiring, acquisition of an ERP system and a supporting consulting firm, multiple other procurement initiatives to keep the city competitive and served as served at the emergency operations center. And whereas Mr. Hager is greatly appreciated for his deep analytical insights which he willingly shared while developing and passing on knowledge to many accountants at the city. And whereas he will be deeply missed as a leader, colleague and friend by the finance and property services department, department heads and staff. Now therefore be it resolved that the mayor and city council do hereby present this honorary resolution to Randy Hager in recognition of their sincere thanks and well wishes upon this occasion of his retirement. >> [applause] [cheering] >> Would anyone would love to share farewell words with Mr. Hager? Uh thank you Council member Warsley and and Council President Payne. Um no, this I'm George Hager of the city controller and I just want to give a a huge thank you to uh Randy Hager. He was the one of the very first people I met when I first got to the city a little less than two years ago or so and just invaluable in helping train me in and and keeping things going and everything. So I just have a a huge amount of gratitude to show Randy and and also just to wish him and his family a awesome retirement and a long life and all that too. So I thank thank you Randy. I really appreciate it and we'll miss you. Well, thank you. Thank up here, right? Um thank you Council, Mayor and and staff for bringing this resolution forward. Completely surprised me. Great honor. Um having worked in the city of Minneapolis with a couple nonprofits before this for 40 years now and having been been a resident for almost that amount of time, um it's been a great honor and a a pleasure to for my very little part help support the residents and the business of the city and um obviously I couldn't have done this without my wife and family and fellow staff and just thank you. I appreciate it. Well, let's do the honorary pig here. I think we have to smoosh. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. Next up, we will again welcome Council member Wonsley to recognize National Public Works Week. Morning. Oh, wow. >> [laughter] >> Yes. Here we go. Public works always come deep. Here we are. >> [laughter] >> It's like we need to give y'all interest music. Like da da da da. >> [laughter] >> All right, we have another resolution honoring our phenomenal public works staff and I have the honor of chairing our public uh sorry, climate and infrastructure uh committee where we take up a lot of the work that our staff here leads on and making sure your streets are great, uh making sure that we have bike lanes and all sorts of different transportation modes and working pretty regularly and collaboratively with our other governmental partners to make sure that our residents can get around our city accessibly, equitably, and freely. So, so excited uh to do this alongside my vice chair uh Council member Soren Stevenson. So, recognizing the week of May 17th, 2026 as National Public Works Week, whereas the American Public Works Association will celebrate the 66th annual National Public Works Week, which will be held the third week in May with the theme rooted in service, powered by community. And whereas the National Public Works Week is a celebration of the public works employees who make our community better by connecting, collaborating, and responding to provide services we as a city depend on. And whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure and services that are of vital importance to a sustainable and resilient city. And whereas the health, safety, and comfort of this community greatly depend on the services they provide such as safe, clean drinking water. We do have good water. And solid waste and recycling collection to help Minneapolis remain a clean and livable city. And They manage the storm water and sanitary sewer network to protect and improve the water quality of our river, lakes, and creeks. One example of this excellent work culminated in the Minneapolis Central City Parallel Tunnel Stormwater Project winning the 2026 APWA Public Works Project of the Year Environment Project. And whereas public works employees design, build, and maintain the thousands of miles of streets, alleys, bridges, bike ways, sidewalks, and street lights, signals, pavement markings, and signage to safely keep the city moving. And whereas public works employees keep the city's plows, garbage trucks, street sweepers, fire trucks, and so many more running even on the coldest days and nights of winter. And whereas every day public works employees take pride in making Minneapolis better and more equitable for all. Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council acknowledges the significant daily contribution that employees within the Public Works Department of the City of Minneapolis provide to the citizens and businesses throughout the city during National Public Works Week. Thank you all. Okay, we can clap. >> [laughter] [applause] >> Who would like to share some words or other sections? Yeah, thanks. Just real quick. On behalf [clears throat] of the 1,300 strong people in Public Works, want to appreciate the City Council for this recognition. So often the work that we do, if we're doing it right, we don't get recognized. We don't get thought about. And so, this is the type of recognition that we really appreciate and is very well deserved. I want to call out especially our team from Surface Waters and Sewers. They manage all the storm water and sewers in the city. This particular project, the Central City Storm Water tunnel project, really grateful for the support from the state legislature, from our partners at the Park Board, from the Army Corps of Engineers, but especially our team here. That project really ensures that we don't have sewer overflow, or excuse me, sewer overflows or flooding downtown in Minneapolis. It was a huge project, a really challenging technical project. And it's one of those that you just you don't see, you don't notice, but we did a great job and it's really important to the city that it got done right. So, thank you, especially to our Surface Water and Sewer team, but again, a big thanks to all 1,300 people in Public Works for the work that they do every day. Great way to close out. And let's grab a photo with the What is Okay. >> [laughter] >> Next up, we will recognize Haitian Flag Day with council members Chavez and Warren. Testing. Test. Alrighty, everyone. We're are excited uh to honor the significance of the Haitian flag to the people of Haiti and supporting the goals and the ideals of the Haitian Flag Day. And we're joined by our esteemed guests. Whereas in 1492, the indigenous Taino people discovered the lost mercenary Christopher Columbus off the coast of what was known then and now as Haiti or Ayiti, a name deriving from the Arawak language and one which was restored after independence was won from the French. And whereas after the painful victory of indigenous genocide and cruel exploitation of the labor of enslaved African people on vast sugar and coffee plantations that transferred significant wealth to European colonial powers, Haiti became the only nation in the Western Hemisphere to defeat three European empires and remains the only nation in the world established as a result of its successful revolutionary uprising of enslaved African people. And whereas hundreds of Haitians have made the Twin Cities their home often as refugees and the civically engaged community is a unique part of the diversity of Minneapolis contributing to our vibrant arts, musical scene, local business community and Whereas when Haiti was hit by a devastating earthquake in 2010, the Haitian diaspora community in Minneapolis and around the world acted gathering resources and supplies to send home and the local Haitian community created a non-profit Haitians Community of Minnesota to align efforts for earthquake relief and continued to provide services to local Haitian families throughout this organization. And whereas the city recognizes the efforts and the works of the Haitian communities of Minnesota who provide sustainable support and advocacy for Haitian people living in Minnesota and Haiti. And whereas Haitian Flag Day is celebrated annually on May 18th marking the date of creation of the Haitian flag sewn by Catherine Flon on May 18th, 1803 in Arcahaie, Haiti and whereas the Haitian flag is a symbol of pride, unity, individual liberty, and is tightly linked to the country's history of struggle and freedom. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the mayor and city council do hereby recognize May 18th as Haitian Flag Day, recognizing the significance of the Haitian flag to the people of Haiti, and supports the goals and ideals of Haitian Flag Day. Congratulations. >> [applause] >> And then we're going to ask Mama Rose to say a few words. Yes, good morning, um, everyone, uh, all the people and all the people in the diaspora. So, um, um, to all Haitian, to all Haitian and the that the all love their country in the critical moment that Haiti is in, despite this adult day, we ask for for we ask for one thing always. We ask for one thing always, um, always in in in minute, take a minute to ask God for our nation, to ask him for grace for Haiti to be better and to live in peace. And to all of you, thank you. And then keep us in our prayer because we got more better day to come and I know Haiti will not go down. Thank I see is not uh pa- pa- pa- pa- pa- pa- pa- pa- Does anyone else have anything to say a few words? Yeah. 12? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah, that's correct. Thank you. Thank you. Awesome. We're going to pose for a photo then, right here. Next, we will recognize American Indian Month with Council Member Chavez. >> Alrighty everyone. We're super excited to be here. Looks like I'm reading it alone. I'm kidding. So, today we're recognizing the month of May as American Indian Month and celebrating the heritages, cultures, and contributions of indigenous people. Whereas each year during the month of May, Minnesota honors and celebrates American Indian Month. And whereas the celebration kicks off with a community pow wow at the American Indian Center, a parade, and a float contest. And whereas American Indians are the original peoples of this land here long before the United States existed. And whereas the United States Census Bureau estimates that as of 2020 Census, nearly 9.7 million Americans identified as American Indian or Alaska Native alone or in combination of. And whereas in Minneapolis, it is home to one of the densest urban American Indian communities in the entire country. And whereas Little Earth is home to nearly 1,000 residents, 50% of whom are under the age of 21. The community has 38 different tribal affiliations and is a model for self-determination for all Native people, prioritizing and eliminating systemic barriers through a wrap-around support services designed for more communities to move forward as well as to address existing conditions. And whereas American Indians have vibrant cultures and traditions and hold a deeply rooted sense of community. And whereas American Indian history includes stories of tragedy, triumph, and perseverance that need to be shared with future generations. And whereas American Indians have made important contributions to United States and the rest of the world in many fields, including agriculture, medicine, music, language, and art. And whereas the city is committed to informing and engaging the community on the important issues, programs, and resources through cultural media, and hosts the Minneapolis American Indian uh relations radio show on Native Roots Radio. And whereas the city values American Indian employees in the enterprise by supporting the employee resource group, Minneapolis American Indian Network. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the mayor and city council do hereby celebrate American Indian Month and the many tribal nations and strong cultures that make up the Minneapolis urban American Indian community, seek to protect and uplift the voices, visions, and strength that exist within our communities, and encourage Minneapolis residents and visitors to participate in events being held in recognition of American Indian Month. And there are a lot of events this month that we hope the community continues to show up to. Yes. Can I pass it to you first? So, I had invited a couple of the community members to say a couple words, and so I'll hand it after Travis Earth Warner, who is our incoming Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors Co-Chair. >> [applause] >> Good morning. Uh we have celebrated American Indian Month for over 50 years. It started out as a week to uh educate uh the churches and the schools uh on the contributions that American American Indians have made. Now, there's a full month of celebrations where we can come together and um have individuals come visit our organizations, and they can learn about our programs and the services that are offered um in our community. Thank you for honoring us today uh with this resolution. I'm going to pass it off to Ruth Buffalo. Good day, good day, good day against. Good morning. Um Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center invites everyone to join us today from 2:00 to 4:00 p 2:00 to 6:00 p.m. for 4 hours of fun at 2315 Avenue South for our open house and our spring community feast. We're very thankful for this recognition and we know that each day each and every day is a day an opportunity for each of us to do good and to honor each other's uh ancestors and legacy. Mats again, odds. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> How Madakiyapi? Uh my name is uh my Dakota name is Iktana Toka Cina. Uh that's Bluebird Boy. Uh my government name is Danny LaCroix. Uh I am here representing Minneapolis American Indian Network. Uh and I just want to say a few things. Uh Minneapolis uh is Dakota and Anishinaabe uh ancestral land. Uh and today we make up uh maybe 1 and 1/2% of the population. Uh and I think internally as an enterprise uh that probably uh reflects the same uh demographic um for the city Minneapolis. And so it was very important um for us to um form uh a group uh for support in such a big enterprise um to uh keep um the city grounded uh in in awareness uh that uh as made of peoples uh we are still here and we are uh resilient as ever. Uh and uh we have a beautiful culture that we just want to uh share uh and expose everyone to. Um and so uh I just want to say thank you all, uh and thank you uh Council for the recognition. Thank you. Thank you. And Joe, come over here. Come here. I I before we take a photo, I just want to actually recognize today obviously in American Indian month, I think it's important to recognize young leaders in our community as well, and recognize that the legislature just ended, and there was a deal on the future of the Roof Depot building with the city and folks in the East Phillips neighborhood, the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute are going to come together to build this amazing project rooted in environmental justice, rooted in land back, rooted in the people of Little Earth and indigenous people of this land who have not given up on this project, and I just want to at least acknowledge the work that Joe has done in our community, and want to make sure that you get this resolution as well. And in American Indian month, this long fight for environmental justice is finally coming to an end with the city and the community coming together saying, "We're going to make this project happen." And at least I wanted to acknowledge the work that all of you have done in this fight as well, but also the work of young leaders like Joe who really never gave up on this vision to make sure that this could happen, and I wanted to at least mention that today cuz I cannot mention it. I'm not sure if you want to say a few words, Joe, but I at least wanted to acknowledge your work. Just a few, and I owe everything, like I stand I'm standing on the shoulders of greats, and I know all the leaders here represented and being honored today which share the same. Um, I believe in this work of advocacy, of working within the system. Uh, I know externally with our community, our residents, that can be frustrating because you don't see results right away. Um, but it's a privilege to be here with leadership that are long-standing and looking to the future, that's seven generational teachings that we always institute in how we strategize and how we move every day. And I want to say that I'm a beneficiary, many of us here are beneficiaries of who came before us, and I just look forward to the work that we're doing today is something that seven generations from now people our folks will be in a better place, our communities will be in a better place, and this world will be in a better place because of it. So, chi megwich for everything you do. Continue to do it even if it's hard, and it's so good to have that support system because we need each other as much as we need to be working alongside each other now more than ever. Thank you so much. Awesome. Let's go. All right, y'all. We're going to take a a photo right here. I want to thank everybody for coming down to City Hall and all our leaders that made this happen. Next up, we are recognizing National Mississippi River Day with Council member Vita. >> Good morning. Thanks for being here. Good morning. I'm so honored to be here recognizing June 2nd, 2026 as National Mississippi River Day in the city of Minneapolis. Thanks for joining us. I'll I'll just get started and colleagues will So, whereas the Mississippi River is one of our nation's most iconic and vital waterways spanning approximately 2,350 miles from Minnesota to Louisiana and you 1910 main stem states and 32 states in its watershed and whereas the Mississippi River has been deeply woven into the lives of indigenous peoples for thousands of years sustaining communities through nourishment, travel, and trade while also holding profound cultural, spiritual, and ancestral significance. Whereas the river is the heart of a migratory flyway for 60% of North America's bird species, provides habitat for at least 260 fish species, and sustains numerous amphibians, reptiles, and mammals making it one of the world's most important ecological corridors. And whereas the Mississippi River is under threat from pollution, habitat loss, climate change, and other environmental stressors which impact the communities, economies, and ecosystems that depend on it. And whereas protecting and restoring the Mississippi River requires collaboration across state agencies, organizations, individuals, and communities to implement sustainable regenerative construction practices, restore wetlands and floodplains, and reduce agricultural and urban runoff to improve water quality and whereas the Mississippi River connects millions of people reflecting our shared history, culture, and responsibility to ensure the vitality for future generations. And whereas One Mississippi and its network of 78 organizations and 20,000 river citizens invite everyone to take action whether through conservation efforts, advocacy, or simply enjoying the river and building community, especially the One Mississippi River Day is of action June 1st through 15th when people across the region come together to restore, celebrate, and advocate for a healthier river. Okay. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the mayor and city council do hereby recognize June 2nd as National Mississippi River Day and urge all people to celebrate, protect, and restore the Mississippi River and its watershed by participating in events, signing up as One Mississippi River citizens, and taking action to safeguard this invaluable resource for generations to come. Thank you. Thank Thank you all so much. We're We're so fortunate in Minneapolis that we have protectors like the groups who show up every day to make sure that the river is safeguarded, that the wildlife on the river is. There's beautiful eagles in North Minneapolis on the river that at certain times of day you can just see people there to to watch them and to watch the wildlife in general. We have access to the river now in North Minneapolis that we never had before. So I and Council member Warren are grateful for the work that you all have put in to to bring that to us as a former Parks Commissioner and having a another former Parks Commissioner on this council, we know how valuable your work is. Thank you so much. Keep it up. Really keep it up. Is there anyone who wants to speak? Well, thank you so much Councilwoman and thank you Council at large. Really appreciate this recognition, this day for the river and really why our city is here. The banks of the Mississippi River has long been home and a central place for people coming together, people living, people residing, people provide finding sustenance from the river. In particular, our Dakota relatives have been here for for generations and generations and generations. This was then the head of navigation which led to the lock and dam system that many all have seen on the river. If you go of course in downtown, that's the start of that 29 step staircase that that ferries river water all the way down. So National Mississippi River Day is only in its second year and we were thrilled for the city to honor and recognize this day. What comes next is our actions. What comes next is our shared commitments. And so as as Councilwoman Vito was uplifting, there is a calendar of over 40 events, many happening locally. I'll pass it in a moment to Abby Moore with the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization to share more about some of the local opportunities happening. My name is Michael Anderson. I am a citizen of of Minneapolis, but I work for the organization One Mississippi, which as the Council woman said, unites organizations, almost 80 of them from Minnesota all the way down to Louisiana, and these river citizens, these individuals that want to learn more, that want to get connected, and want to make a difference. And so, as we approach the official day June 2nd, um I'm thrilled to share with you all that the river is doing what it's always done, and that is being the great connector. And so, with this National Mississippi River Day uh proclamation, we have the state of Minnesota, of course our city of Minneapolis, but then our downstream neighbors as well are joining the call. Um Memphis, Tennessee has already joined, the state of Louisiana, the city of Baton Rouge. So, again, just another way in which we turn toward each other, turn toward our shared values, turn toward life, which we know is water. So, I'll pass it off to Abby Moore. Thank you all, and thank you, Council, for this recognition. Uh thanks for having us here today. I will be brief. My name is Abby Moore. I work for the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. We're really, really happy to be part of this today, and I just wanted to let folks know that um 2026 is an important year for the Mississippi River because in 1926 um the river through the Twin Cities was declared dead. Three live fish were found between St. Paul and Red Wing, and so in 19 it Sorry, in 2026 we are recognizing 100 years of improvement since then. We now have a healthy fishery, as you heard um Council Member Vita mentioned, there are eagles. We see them all over the place. There is a a really healthy and vibrant ecosystem. But, there is still a ways to go, and we must remain committed to this work, and so we're so happy today to have the city recognize the importance of this river. Uh thank you very much. And And before we leave, I I asked to come down and help with this resolution cuz I wanted to thank you personally for your efforts. As a an elected official who actually grew up in Minneapolis and lived by the river, uh, I grew up in Northeast and now I just live a stone's throw from the river. If my arms was still good like it was when I was younger, I could throw a rock into the river from my house. But, to see the changes over the years with the fences being taken down and the walls and the barriers for the average citizen to enjoy that river is just It's so good. It's so necessary and it's because of advocates like you that make that happen. So, thank you very much for what you do. Thank you. We'll gather for a group photo. Thank you. I'm going to put this in heavy rotation. It's on. Finally, we will welcome back Council Member Chavez to recognize George Floyd. >> All right, everyone. So, today we're recognizing May 25th, 2026 as a 6 year since the police murdered George Floyd in Minneapolis that sparked a global catalyst for justice. Whereas George Floyd was born born on October 14, 1973 in uh Fayetteville, Fayetteville, North Carolina, uh later moving to Houston, Texas where he grew up playing basketball and football throughout high school and college. And whereas in adulthood, Mr. Floyd worked hard to make changes in his life centered in religious mentorship, community service, and messages of anti-violence. And whereas Mr. Floyd moved to Minneapolis area in 2014 where he worked as a truck driver and provided security as a bouncer at a local small business. He was a beloved father, brother, relative, and a friend who declared throughout his life that he would one day change the world. And and he did. And on May 25th, 2020, near the intersection of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue, now known as George Floyd Square, after making a store purchase, George Floyd was confronted by four Minneapolis police officers whose actions led to his horrific murder and the kneeling on his neck by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for over 9 minutes. And whereas what is commonly known as the 8 minute 40 sec- 46 second video, but is actually 9 minutes and 29 seconds long that captured the murder was taken by a bystander and minor at the time whose quick thinking and instinct proved integral to the ensuing global protest uh police brutality and systemic racism, the movement for racial justice, and the criminal convictions of the four officers responsible for Mr. Floyd's murder and the violations of his civil rights and community members, activists, and organizers immediately came together to preserve artworks and other offerings and to regularly assemble at George Floyd Square, advocate for solutions to dismantle systemic racism including the 24 demands as well as create on-the-ground memorials like the fist sculpture at the intersection, garden, and the Say Their Names Cemetery, and whereas Mr. Floyd's murder launched legal investigations by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the United States Department of Justice into the violation of civil rights by MPD. The probe lasted over 3 years and resulted in a court-enforceable agreement due to findings of pattern and practice that MPD quote uses excessive force including unjustified deadly force and unreasonable use of tasers, unlawfully discriminates against black people and native people in its enforcement activities including the use of force following stops, violates the rights of people engaged in protected speech, and along with the city discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities when responding to calls for assistance. And whereas the city of Minneapolis began crafting and implementing police reforms immediately following the murder of George Floyd as investigations happened. This included banning the use of chokeholds, requiring officers to report and intervene when they witness unauthorized uses of force, making changes to the use and protocol of crowd control munitions among other important reforms, and whereas the city of Minneapolis continues to confront this legacy through mourning, resistance, healing, and the pursuit of equity and transformation. The city has committed to ongoing work that recognizes the collective pain and trauma caused by the police murder of George Floyd through racial healing and restorative justice initiatives, transforming traditional policing, improving police accountability, investing in upstream solutions, and dismantling systemic racism at the city of Minneapolis. And whereas the city of Minneapolis is transforming traditional policing into a community safety ecosystem by improving community access and input into the oversight of police, investing in violence prevention programs, restorative justice and racial healing initiatives, alternative response models, embedded mental health responders, and collect co-locating police precincts with other services to address community needs more holistically, among others. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the mayor and city council do hereby recognize May 25th, 2026 as the sixth year since the police murder of George Floyd that sparked a global catalyst for justice, and acknowledge there is much more work yet to be done to address systemic racism at the city of Minneapolis. All right. So, we have a few speakers here with us today. First person to go is Chanelle, and whoever wants to say a few words you may. Greetings. My name is Chanelle Austin. I am the executive director of Rise and Remember, and we preserve stories of resistance to racial injustice. And we create spaces for people to grieve, pay respect, and be a voice for justice. We have two family members of George Floyd on our board who cannot be here today, and several family members will be coming in this weekend to participate in our Rise and Remember festival, to which the entire community is invited. So, on behalf of them, we thank the city for this resolution because I know it means a lot to them for George Floyd to continue to be remembered and recognized. I also stand here as a neighbor and as a community member of George Floyd Square. We put our bodies on the line and we preserved the art as protest. And we stood and continue to stand for justice because of the violence against black bodies. When Derek Chauvin put his knee on the neck of George Floyd and lynched him for the world to see, it sparked something in us and around the world because people saw their oppression in our oppression here as black people in America, frankly. And that oppression continues to exist even after George Floyd, which is why we have Dolal Idd and Winston Smith and Dante Wright and Amir Locke and the names continue. This is not a protest that was, this is a protest that is. And and what Derek Chauvin did that day was ignite a fire among people who hate my very skin color and body, which is why we can also see the strategic rolling back of our votes across America. This is all tied, this is all connected. And so, while it is lovely that the city of Minneapolis is recognizing what happened and some of what still needs to happen, I assure us that the debt to the black community is great. And the work that needs to be done is lacking. And it requires all of us to do something and to continue to step up and to continue to not ignore the voices of the people and the voices of the community because we know what we need and we know what we want to be free and to be liberated. So, trust us. Trust us. I wish this resolution spoke more to the ways in which the people are resisting and the ways in which the people are growing and developing as to the performative measures to make the police seem better. But, this is a system that has existed for hundreds of years. Um and it's not fixed and we're still suffering. So, I ask us to come together and to continue to resist, to come together and to continue to still stand. Because we in Minnesota have demonstrated to the world that when we stand together, nothing is impossible. >> [applause] >> All right, thank you. I If there's no other words, we'll just take a photo and really appreciate your words to know. >> Thank you, everyone. At this time, I'm going to call this regular meeting of the City Council for May 21st to order. The clerk will call the roll. Councilmember Rainville. Present. Vito. Present. Pomesano. Present. Chavez. Present. Warren. Present. Shaefer. Present. Wansley. Present. Tuitel. Present. Waiting. Present. Chaudry. Present. Stevenson. Present. Vice President Osman. Present. President Payne. Present. There are 13 members present. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. Before we begin the meeting, let me remind all members and staff that this meeting is broadcast live to enable greater public participation. The broadcast includes real-time captioning as a means to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that captioners can trans fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. With that, the agenda for today's meeting is before us. We have two items related to a moratorium on data centers uses on our agenda today. Listed under the introduction and referral calendar, item number one, and under new business, item number four. I'm going to propose that we dispense uh with those items first. Uh and I'm going to propose that we take up those items uh prior to the reports of committees. I'll move approval of the agenda including these revisions. Are there any other amendments to the agenda? Councilmember Schafer. Yes, I would like to propose to bring forward the data center use regulations ordinance along with the other two data center items. So that we can talk about them all at once. Certainly, there's no action that we need to take for the notice, but we can certainly have that discussion all at once. Thank you. Is there anyone else in queue? Seeing none, is there a motion to uh adopt the agenda with those revisions? >> So moved. Second. The clerk will call the roll. Councilmember Rainville. Aye. Vetaw. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Gordon. Aye. Schafer. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Payton. Aye. Chaudry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and the agenda is adopted as amended. The next item is acceptance of minutes from our regular meeting of May 7th. May I have a motion to accept those minutes. So moved. Second. The clerk will call the roll. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries. Finally, we have the referral petitions, communications, and reports to proper committees. May I have that motion, please? So moved. Second. The clerk will call the roll. Council member Rainville. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries, and those matters have been referred. As discussed, we will first take up item number one on the introduction and referral calendar, which is proposed which is a proposed moratorium on data center uses. Pursuant to notice, this is a motion from council members Chaudry and Chavez to introduce an ordinance amending the interim ordinances code to add a new chapter providing for a moratorium on the establishment, reestablishment, or expansion of data center uses, and to refer said ordinances to the business, housing, and zoning committee. Uh Council member Chaudry, would you like to make your motion and speak to the item? Yes, Council President. Um I'll make a motion to approve the temporary pause. I also just want to acknowledge the fact that this is a special item in the way that in introduction and referral, if this body moves it forward, it goes into effect immediately. And um >> [snorts] >> I as a result have a longer presentation to kind of walk through the thought processes around a pause on data center development. I also would like the public to know that there is also an amendment to the ordinance that's on the floor that does make some exemptions. And that's going to be brought forward by Council Member Osman. But I'm going to speak to just the broader pause. So, with that, I'm going to begin. Council President, colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to present on this temporary pause on data center development. I know that this will run parallel to and complement the several ordinances I'm noticing with council colleagues to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for data centers across the city of Minneapolis. I want to begin by explaining what a common sense pause is and why cities have this tool in their toolbox to be used judiciously. Pauses can be used when there's a speculative rush of development and cities are inundated. But that's only one reason. And I want to be clear, that's not the reason why I'm bringing this forward. I'm bringing this forward because cities also use pauses to update zoning, rewrite comprehensive plans, and better align with long-term community goals, especially when current regulatory frameworks are outdated and insufficient to meet the moment. And cities use pauses to create time to evaluate new and emerging industries that impact people's lives. The state has recommended and offered pauses to local governments with cannabis, pausing to study local impacts and craft smart policy. This pause is not to be punitive. This is not a ban. This pause is not anti-growth. This pause on data center development is about being ahead of the curve and prioritizing smart growth, future-proofing our city and bringing the public into a process with us as policy makers, especially when it's such a hot button topic. The data center industry is rapidly growing and changing, and big tech corporations behind them answer to their shareholders and not our residents. Their goal is to turn a profit. Our goal must be to look out for our people first. And I can tell you people in every single ward of this city are deeply concerned about the impacts of data center growth on their lives, on the green zones, on the resources we all rely on. And their concerns do have validity to them, and it is us on us to do the work to protect their interests and look out for future generations of Minneapolis. Now, let's talk about the problem that we face. A data center is a structure filled with servers, chips, storage equipment, networking hardware. These facilities are the physical backbone of everything that we call the cloud. They power your email, your streaming services, increasingly artificial intelligence tools that tech companies are racing to build. And yes, data centers exist today in our city, smaller-scale enterprise facilities that power the needs of businesses, banks, hospitals, and universities. But data centers that are being proposed today are not small server rooms of 20 years ago. These are not the data centers of your mom or your grandma. These the industry has rapidly changed in the last 5 years even. We're talking about facilities with mass computing power, especially those powering generative AI, which society is contending with the ethics of it every single day. A single 50-MW data center draws roughly the same power as 40 to 55,000 average American homes. And unlike a neighborhood or a shopping district, it runs a near full capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Research and industry data strongly shows that once a major data center project is permitted or built in an area, additional data centers become much more likely to follow. This is one of the defining characteristics of the industry. Economists, planners, utilities, and developers often describe this as the cluster effect or the network effect. And this makes cumulative impact of many mid- to large-size data centers important for us to be aware of and build guardrails around. The scale is enormous, and as a government, we haven't done the work to regulate it. Water consumption is significant as well. These facilities require between 10 to 100 million gallons of water per year just to cool their machines. In some cities, the water competes directly with residential water pressure and fire suppression capacity. And as we see continued growth in areas that are attractive for data center development, and that's not limited to downtown, we have to ask and answer what this means for wastewater management, what capacity we're leaving for other uses, what future planning requires, and at the very least we owe it to our constituents to know everything we possibly can to set strong guardrails instead of rushing through projects. Same goes for energy. We have not yet determined how much slack in our energy generation we must preserve for uses other than data centers. We haven't determined how much energy we, as a city, want to plan for for this industry, and we are nowhere near that determination today. We owe our residents a transparent accounting of how we are protecting them from sub- data center energy use, and we owe them clarity on what potential community benefits might exist. We also have to be sober about the fact that the corporations behind new generation data centers have consist- consistently sold out communities across the country. NDAs, closed doors, sweetheart deals, facilities powered by high emission energy sources in black and brown communities treated as sacrifice zones, water and power extracted to the point where residents lose water pressure and see their bills rise. And I've heard the arguments for why that wouldn't happen here in Minneapolis. But the actors and their ethics don't change. The reality must be met with a strong governance practice to ensure all harms are prevented on the front end. So, here's what multiplies our problem. Minneapolis has a serious regulatory gap, and I really want to get that across to folks. We don't even have a definition of a data center in our zoning code. Right now, these facilities are classified as communication exchanges, a category designed for telephone switching and other communi- communication style uses. That outdated classification permits data centers with a conditional use permit in almost every zoning district in the city. Every parcel of land is fair game. That's your first speech. Thank you. Um we don't differentiate by size. A 2,000 square foot server room and a facility drawing 50 megawatts are treated identically under our current code. And that's not a workable regulatory framework. That is a gap. And our enforcement tools are limited and weak. State law currently restricts us but to regulating by square footage, but not by megawatts, which is a huge problem because the entire language of this industry is megawatts. We can make rough conversions and guestimates from square footage to megawatts, but that's only a short-term fix. The industry's goal is to pack more computing power into less space, which means two facilities of the same footprint could consume wildly different amounts of energy and water, and we would have no mechanism to distinguish between them. Colleagues, we are being asked to make permitting decisions right now without information, definitions, or tools we need to make responsibly. It's not even us even making those calls. It's our planning commission, an incredible group of officials and residents, um who need more support from this council to do their work well. If we have a comprehensive framework for cannabis dispensaries, where they can go, where they can't go, what conditions apply, and what research backs our decisions, we surely must do the same for an industry that is far more complicated and moving far faster. Now, I could go on and on and on, um but I won't. I'm very passionate about this issue. It's very deep and layered, and the work is cut out for us. And I'll just say this, the stakes are high for our communities, and that's what I've heard from people across our city. Even our workers. I get it. I get that that that jobs are on the line, and they matter. This is an important conversation. But I I just want to highlight, we are not alone in this work. 57 jurisdictions nationwide have enacted active pauses to give themselves breathing room to protect their communities. And I think we can say with confidence that it's all of our values that we want good development, and no one wants bad development. I think we can agree, nobody wants bad development. And this pause isn't saying Minneapolis is closed for business, it's saying let's create a table where all the stakeholders can have a say in shaping the future of our city. Having tech companies and corporations that aren't willing to do business above board isn't a business that our city city should bend its values to in order to gain revenue. It doesn't align with who we are and our governance ethos up until this point. And so I'll close with this and I'll warn you it's going to sound a little optimistic. I believe [snorts] if we take this breathing room we'll be able to work together on a solid regulatory framework. I know that there's very different perspectives on this council. But if we give give each other this breathing room, we can all have skin in the game. We can bring back our constituents perspectives, work with our city staff to build something that's truly meaningful and cutting edge. Talk to the workers that are in this room today. See what's important. Share our concerns with them. Something as some we can build something as a city enterprise together that we can be truly proud of. The opportunities literally right there and we just have to go for it. So in conclusion just first of all thank you to my policy aids Amy and Ben. They have poured so much time and energy into the research of this work and connecting with community members. Thank you to the constituents that came to our town hall. Um thank you to every council member that had a conversation with me about this. Thank you to the trades who talked to me um for several hours leading up to today's vote. Thank you to the researchers and the experts that connected with my office and I'm looking forward to working with everyone. Um and I ask for everyone's support on this. Uh Council member Palmisano has moved this for referral to the Biz Committee. Just want to make sure there's a second for that. Second. That's been moved and seconded. I'll recognize Council Member Scheffer. Yes, I will speak to the moratorium, but before I do that, I too wanted to just thank my colleagues for your engagement and the discussion that we've already started around data centers. Just about all of us have co-authored the regulation ordinance and or the staff directive that you will see before us in this cluster of three items. And to me that is encouraging. To me that says we want to do this right and we want to work together. We all need the rec the recognize the need that we have to do research to understand where we have jurisdiction. And I know there's fear around megawatts. If you didn't watch the Public Utilities Commission uh at their last session, I would encourage you to do so. There's some really exciting and thoughtful things coming forward around regulation that um I think many of the people at the table were supportive of. Um and a lot of good analogies around energy use um that are very easy to share as an example. So, I would encourage all of my colleagues to watch that meeting and to hang in there with all the energy detail. And then also, we are excited about setting some guidelines of use in our city. And while I think both of those pieces of work are valuable, and we have this strong opportunity for thoughtful collaboration as we move forward. It is going to be important and timely work that I'm excited about. I want to also, after my colleagues, thank all of the labor trades who have showed up today, including SMART Local 10 and the Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Council. I appreciate your strong advocacy around the importance of job opportunities in downtown Minneapolis and the fact that you are here means a lot. Thank you. There are real opportunities around small-scale data center development, restoring commercial valuations, supporting union jobs, driving increased property tax revenue to help relieve the homeowner impact that we're all hearing from our constituents and help us get us closer to our city's climate goals through increased franchise fees to invest in weatherization of homes in green zones as well as increased potential for energy sourcing into our city's district heating system. These are not hyper hyper scale data centers taking up huge swaths of land and resources. The data centers being proposed for Minneapolis are small, targeted, and fit within our existing footprint. The opportunity for investment is real. The opportunity for union jobs is real. In recent weeks, shifting to the moratorium, the council has just talked about their interest in introducing a quote moratorium around data centers and it already has increased kind of this chilling effect on potential investment. But guess what? Today, we're not just talking about it. We are taking real action. Today, if we support a moratorium, what will be the impact? No expansion plans underway for current data centers that are currently underway can continue. So, no expansion. No new projects can begin and the opportunities for trades work slows. Today, we have the opportunity to vote down the moratorium and unanimously support jobs. Many of us were endorsed by the people we see before us and we need to support that perspective. Additionally, if we support a moratorium, we make headlines and again communicate that Minneapolis is wary of investment. Guess who else has vacant office space and no moratorium? St. Paul. Let's not step out with a moratorium like St. Paul stepped out with rent control only to realize it had real economic impact that they had to walk back from quickly. As council member for the central business district, I respectfully request my colleagues to join me in support of this ordinance introduction and staff direction and against the moratorium. Let's send a message that we value business investment in our city once more as we begin this research, this important research and regulation process. Thank you. Vice President Osman. Uh thank you Mr. President. Uh data centers are hot topic everywhere you turn on TV. It's a national topic and I think it's very smart to pause and and approach it in a very balanced way. How do we make sure that we are creating uh the jobs and opportunity for our city, especially downtown, at the same time be responsible uh lawmakers who are looking out for well-being of our community. So, I will be bringing motion to amend the original uh moratorium for more approach balance. I believe the the moratorium is too long and too broad. So, my change will be make it shorter and targeted. Here's what I mean. Um downtown needs flexibility. We talked about that a lot. I visited uh Sleep Number which actually showed me a lot of created so many jobs for construction and and electrician and so on and that was really smart. So, the smaller data centers under 350 square feet in downtown core can still forward. Um this protects jobs and redevelopment. I know it's important uh for union workers to continue to having the opportunity to work and create uh more jobs. Um so this also ordinance uh I'm sorry, motion uh will still protect uh neighbors. Uh large data centers outside downtown will stay paused while the city study impacts like energy use and noise and land use. This will allow reasonable projects to continue uh while still giving staff time to finish the work. So, my colleagues, like I start off my conversation in the beginning uh my motion will limit the timeline from 1 year to 6 months while we study it. Also, my motion will um have 350 sq ft buildings to continue developing a data center. As I visited Sleep Number it was 181 sq ft. So, I think the buildings we have in downtown uh can still uh this 6 month can still continue their work and have their plans. But, that's just around downtown. Anywhere in the city, it does make sense because we live in the city. We live in this our neighborhood. It does make sense for our staff to take the time that's necessary to study and put uh ordinance that is that is a law that will make it uh regulated and and as a as Council Member Shef mentioned, I'm a co-author of that. So, I appreciate Council Member Schroeder's thinking and approach of pausing and and and having the time to think and for me I think 6 months is enough to pass and at the same time let's make sure that the data centers we have in downtown as I visited continue and also anyone who's thinking about having a smaller data center in downtown are still able to do it within 6 months. So I'm hoping that uh I can get the support uh for this balanced approach of this very important issue. Thank you. >> [laughter] >> Vice President Osman has moved to amend the referral to change the period from 1 year to 6 months and to create a exemption for uh data centers that are less than 350,000 square feet within the downtown zone defined by 35W, Interstate 94, Plymouth Avenue, and Mississippi River. Is there a second? Second. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Um and without objection, I'm going to recommend that we take up this amendment and the underlying uh uh motion as one item. Uh Council Member Chavez. Uh thank you, Council President Payne. Since endorsements were invoked in this conversation, I want to be clear that some folks on this body were not endorsed by the people before us because they voted against city employees while serving on the park board. Uh without colleagues, without this temporary moratorium >> just keep comments germane to the topic. The it was mentioned, so I'm responding to it. Without this temporary moratorium, we are saying that Minneapolis is open for pollution and that anything goes. I will repeat that. Without this temporary moratorium, we are saying that Minneapolis is open for pollution and that anything goes. We need time to set up a strong regulatory framework which this temporary moratorium is allowing us to do. Whether it's an urban cores, the suburbs, or rural communities, the build out of data centers largely powered by AI, is the result of a specific corporate strategy, bullying municipalities like Minneapolis into accepting them while prioritizing the speed over accountability. Something that I think gets lost in this conversation about the actual harm of data centers themselves is why they are being built out in the first place. Big tech, private equities, crypto mining and developers, along with the military and law enforcement industries, are the primary drivers of the expansion and they are profiting from it. Expanding data center capacity powers AI-driven surveillance tools used by law enforcement federal agencies like ICE and corporate vendors like Flock to spy on us, to deport our neighbors, and to suppress protest against state power. Also lost in this conversation, which is largely focused locally on downtown, is the environmental injustice that disproportionately impacts communities of colors that have long been exploited in this city, in this state, and in this country. Whether it was Smith Foundry or Bituminous Roadways in my ward, the Herc in Ward 5, or the various empty parcels of land in Northeast, history shows us that polluting producing facilities are often placed in historically disenfranchised communities like the ones I represent. To get more in target about what I'm talking about, the Trump administration signed an executive order last year directing the EPA to identify Superfund and brownfield sites for data center development while weakening requirements for environmental review. Weakening them. Earlier this year, the EPA issued guidance actively directing big tech to to look for contaminating sites near municipal water supplies. The EPA explicitly noted these sites are viable even if cleanup is still ongoing, and that is a major concern. In my ward in East Phillips, it sits on a former federal Superfund site where arsenic contamination has never been cleaned up. It's currently an active brownfield site, literally what the Trump administration is looking for. So, I'm not going to allow the Trump administration to pollute our neighborhoods or make it more easily to pollute the neighborhoods that I represent in Ward 9. >> [snorts] >> I think it's been uh a lot of talking points about how this moratorium will affect corporatized already developed areas in downtown, but I will not allow this conversation to just be about downtown when our environmental justice neighborhoods are the ones that are actually going to be impacted in this conversation and in this work as we build out these massive data centers. And one, I'm going to be voting for this amendment because without it the moratorium fails, and this moratorium does matter to me. But I want to be very clear that I'm not happy with this amendment. Uh but I do think that this temporary pause is important so we can build out a robust regulatory framework to make sure that these data centers aren't being built in our environmental justice neighborhoods. I am very concerned about the empty parcels of lands that are in our communities of color where then big tech is going to come in, suck up our water, our energy, raise the bills on people, and it's going to devastate our communities of color. That is a big concern that I have with this. And I also want to be clear about what this carve out carve out does and why I have concerns with it even though I'm going to support it because I need this to pass. Exempting downtown from this moratorium opens up the door to locking up that particular land for future data centers instead. Instead of using that land for housing, for a family-friendly downtown, for ways that we can bring customers to downtown to build a flourishing downtown where everyone feels welcomed. Instead, we're saying that we want to build data centers in downtown instead of actually building infrastructure that is going to bring people back to downtown, which is something that should be our priority. I also don't think the 6-month uh timeline gives us enough time to get this right. So, I just want to be clear that while I'll be supporting this motion, I'm not happy with it. Uh and with all the rosy promises being made about how data centers will impact the bottom line of spreadsheets while ignoring the harms that always fall on communities of color like mine, we need this moratorium to make sure that we come up with an equitable regulatory framework to regulate these data centers because what I don't want is folks just saying it's about downtown, but the folks talking about just downtown are ignoring communities of color like mine and that is just wrong. Thank you. Council member Chaudry. Uh thank you, Mr. President. Um thank you uh to my co-author on the moratorium pause, Council member Chavez. I think like that's a really good highlight of an example of the the the conditions and the way that like infrastructure exists in city of Minneapolis might be different from like rural and suburban communities, but like the way that actors that build these out do not change, right? There is an unethical practice in which these generative AI facilities for data centers are being built out and that's a real reality and I think every single council member is bringing those per- perspectives into our chamber as we should, right? Like this is a moment for us to really lean in and build out something good. Um I will say to Council member Osman, I appreciate you bringing forward this motion. Um you and I talked a lot about it. You know that I have a hard time with it. >> [laughter] >> A very difficult time with it. Um because you know, like one thing that matters a lot to me is cumulative impact, right? Like you can have one 50 megawatt data center, but then you build another and you build another and another and then you're starting to look at 150 megawatts. And we're talking about cluster effect and like we're saying no, not hyperscale's not happening, but like if you're looking at the language of megawatts and hyperscale, like that's concerning. But I think this exemption in downtown is something that I can support because I know that there are voices that want to see these projects continue. I know there's members of this council that want to see this continue. I think during this pause, while we have it and we have the regulatory framework that we're going to build out, we get to have a longer conversation about what does zoning look like in downtown, what does it look like in the rest of our city, what uses are we not expect accepting. I also think it's a great educational opportunity. There's not a single person that's an expert up here on data centers, not by a long shot. And there's a lot that we can learn from our community members, especially those who have been negatively impacted by data center facilities. And those concerns, they deserve to be explored, right? We really does This is something we really should just put our whole effort behind. So I'm going to support this today. Um I think like one thing I do want to get across is again, like this is not about banning something and creating an all-out chilling effect. I think as government, it is our duty to protect the public interest and have the conversations and actually have a process. And then we get to make decisions about what our zoning and land use will look like in the city of Minneapolis. Like I can say right now, like there are major parts of the city where I want to see data centers banned. Like I don't think they should be there in our green zones. And I think we need to continue to have that conversation. Council member Rainville. Thank you. Uh But most of all I want to thank the true workers who come down today. Don't let the suit and tie fool you. I was a member of Teamsters Local 120. That's how I worked my way through college many years. I I was with uh HERE Local 17 up until my 40s. And I got the sore hips and back to prove it. So, thank you so much for coming down and letting your voice be heard. I appreciate Dan uh the effort you led. Thank you very much. And to my colleagues, as as we think about how to vote on uh this. I'm so proud to serve with you because we're all advocates and activists. That's how that's how we got elected to to represent the good of not only our ward but the whole city. And it's a big step now to become a governing body. And this does not take that step. It doesn't involve all 13 of us in that conversation before this this language was put forward. Uh As elected officials, as a governing body, we run an enterprise. An enterprise that is designed to improve the lives of 425,000 citizens. 4,000 city employees. We have a $2 billion budget that we have to manage for the success of our citizens. And for that success, it takes thoughtful discussions, decisions based off research from staff, from subject matter experts, from testimony like like the workers who are down here today. And again, thank you for coming down. It also takes, and please listen to this, speaking to council members who represent the area that proposed ordinance would impact. You know, I'm literally 10 ft away, my door, from uh one of the authors, but nothing was said. It was just thrown out there. Uh is he talking about the chair? The I'm speaking I have the floor I have the floor, chair. I have the floor. >> Council Council members, just make sure that you are speaking to the policy, not to the individual. I did not say a name. Listen to my words. >> [laughter] >> Okay. Continue, Council member. A well-run government runs on facts, not fears or accusations. We are on the verge, I am convinced, that we are on the verge of a new generation of building use of downtown building use. That'll bring back our tax base, and that will allow us to spend the money on social services that the state and county is not spending the money on. This is our chance to raise city funds to improve the lives of the people that we are elected to serve. So, think about all that, not about ideology, not about uh what you hope or think could happen, but let's base our decisions based on facts, not fears and accusations. Thank you. Council member Wansley. Thank you, President Payne. First, I want to say thank you to Council member Chaudhry and Chavez for bringing the underlying motion and moratorium forward, which I strongly support. Um Big Tech is not trying to put data centers into every city, suburb, and rural area across the country to serve us. They are building them for profit. That's point-blank end period. Data centers are not for us and they are fundamentally extractive. They take up space. Even a small or medium-size data center is tens of thousands of square footage that could be used for transit-oriented development, housing, public art, green space, or local businesses that actually generate sustainable revenue and community wealth. And people should not let the short-term supposed benefits of data centers come at the expense of the opportunity to build a sustainable city in the image of a connected um and and and climate-friendly and it's thoughtful about how we're building housing, all things that's laid out in our 2040 plan. These data centers also take up water, our precious clean water that sustains our city and each one of our families. And that fresh water is the crown jewel of our state. Thousands of water protectors know this and have even put their bodies on the line to defend that water source against the continued efforts of corporate extraction and pollution. And not a single person up here has any data or proper analysis of the impacts that data centers will have to our city, but are willing to force residents to bear the risk anyways. And it's absurd to me that as elected officials even here, but looking at the ones in greater Minnesota and our suburban neighbor um neighbors they are even taking the threats posed by data centers more seriously than we are here in Minneapolis. And it's quite disappointing to to be in this moment and recognize politically on this issue we are to the right of Utah, to the right of Nevada, and even looking locally, we are to the right politically of Eagan on the issue of data centers and the approach of a moratorium. And Minneapolis has always been a staunch advocate for environmental justice and labor protections and actually being thoughtful of how we take on um corporate interests. So, I am truly surprised at the eagerness that some are showing to throw that advocacy away, to throw that legacy and history away because of the hollow promises being sold to us by Big Tech. And I want to be clear that data centers are being pushed here in Minneapolis by tech billionaires who handsomely profit from them and also from those who have a financial interest in them as well. Like others on this dais, I got a long email from the Downtown Council saying that they are supportive of data centers and of course do not support the moratorium. But, the reality is the Minneapolis Downtown Council has also taken positions on whatever um their donor base or corporate interests have told them to take. Minneapolis have seen it for years when it came to workers advocating for the bare minimum of a 15 minimum wage, our Downtown Council asked us to oppose it. Same out of fear of driving out in the way business interests. When Uber and Lyft, another corporate corporate tech giant that we rolled the red carpet out, I am and this was brought up before. When Uber and Lyft came into our city and also threatened to not pay their workers or sorry, was not paying their workers a 15 minimum wage policy that we have on the books. Also, the very organizations that are clamoring for the data centers also told us let those low-wage, largely immigrant drivers basically continue to live in poverty. And I do not want to be part of supporting efforts that ask us to put the interests of big money over the livelihoods of our residents who are actually the ones who make our city thrive, but would bear the ultimate cost of these impacts of the data centers if we just rolled out the red carpet as some of us would like to do. And I highlight this because it is important for the public to be aware that in the next several months there's going to be lots of conversations about data centers. And these companies know that the public is rightful in being distrustful of Silicon Valley corporations, largely because many of them are known Trump allies who have successfully used their money to prevent regulation. And residents should anticipate local groups who financially benefit from data centers to also become proxies in the attempt to offer these exploitative tech companies legitimacy and credibility. I know council members, as well as Mayor Frey, will be met with tons of political pressures from these tech corporations and their allies to advance extremely weak regulations or to actually abandon all regulatory efforts together. In fact, they have lobbyists right now working overtime to do everything that we can to persuade us that these data centers are for the best of our well-being and will prevent the further fall of Minneapolis and are the economic goose egg of saving our city. And it's sad, but these amendments are are reflection of that that we're considering that. That pressure by the political forces tied to these data centers. This is an effort to even weaken the underlying motion for moratorium and it's likely to prevail. But it's very clear we know what these tech companies are trying to do and what their ultimate goal is and it's to serve themselves. And local government's job is to protect our city from extractive and exploitative forces like big tech to make sure that our city continues to be affordable, for it to continue to be walkable and sustainable, and to make sure that our residents have clean water and reliable power, and to make sure that our city is actually full of living-wage jobs and healthy workplaces. And data centers impact all of that. So, this is why I'm also authoring a legislative directive with council members Chaudhary and Asman that we'll take up after this item which requests extensive information on the potential impacts that data centers have and will have on our community, especially if we're seeing the accumulation of many small and mid-size data centers. And I'm pretty sure again we're going to see lots of conversation be driven and lots of political pressure to not entertain some of the recommendations that will come from that analysis. But that said, I also want to know the local or notes the local impact because Ward 2 is also getting a data center and I learned this at a community meeting. And in our current environment and as a council member, we currently and I have currently no tools to protect the residents of Ward 2 from the potential impacts that the data center will bring into our neighborhood. So, I'd rather have a protection as opposed to nothing and I urge our residents to keep an eye on this discussion and for us to continue championing every protective measure we can against big tech coming in and trying to shape our neighborhoods for their profits and not our actual well-being. You're at time. Council member Whiting. Thank you President Payne and just a quick note I want to give a nod to Council member Chaudhary, Council member Chavez, Council member Asman and and and Council member Cheh for here and and all of those that on this body if we look across the actions as it relates to data center usage, data center moratoriums, there is almost there is almost unanimous version of support that we do have to have some regulations around what this looks like. And so again, this is I think what we are missing here is this is a lot of around the margins. We are all very close on something that I think fits fully within the politics of this body and it isn't in these margins that we are all discussing and debating and so want to make sure that is clear. Uh and right, I'm grateful uh to this this measure that Council Member Osman is moving that reflects a robust compromise uh that encourages intentional progress without stifling growth. Uh and I'm incredibly excited by uh what I hope to be a unanimous effort uh to de- develop data center regulations that uh will hopefully pass here shortly. Um and what we are seeing right if this is This is the part that does excite me and has excited me uh for a while is as you see a bunch of people up here that are frustrated with a lot of things. Uh and that means we're actually probably doing work is what it really means. It means we are coming through and compromising and actually engaging in government and governance that matters for every single individual, not just one corner, not just one area, not just one interest group. Uh and I appreciate that. Uh right, and I am supportive of this measure today because I think it gives the city time to do research and and and figure out what those best practices um and how we can govern well without dismissing uh the boon that data centers may offer to our city and particularly downtown in the near future. And I think what we are seeing and have to be sure of here is is we are not hoping to stop this. We are hoping to slow it down. Uh we are hoping to sit back and see how we can best advocate for uh for our neighbors, for uh the interests uh downtown, for our workers. Um and and right, and there's there's a lot of us here today. Right, and it's I would like to note uh specifically uh you know, there's one things that I think we are are missing here, right? A a lot of of the people in front of us if the if the public can't see, we have a lot of workers here. Uh right, and many of these members uh have grown up here in this city um that learned in our schools, in our classrooms, um that have been invested in the city of Minneapolis, uh that got into apprenticeship programs to help this city and built a career on trades and working and ensuring that you know we all support stories like that and that we have to embrace responsible development and create jobs and job pathways that provide a path to to middle class and our next generation of residents. And so when we are talking about what this is right there's a part right have these conversations with Council member Schaefer have these conversations with Council member Childress is is we have to ensure that that we have community benefit agreements that we have work pathway programs that we are getting out of what the these centers are coming in into our city. And so this is a version that I think I can support and right where I'm not the most excited about it is something that I can support cuz that's called governance. And so >> [snorts] >> again I think we are are doing the right thing on behalf of all of our city all of our workers the environment and we are figuring that out and I and I appreciate the efforts even though it tends to come with a little bit of frustration that this is the efforts that we should be moving forward. Thank you. Council member Schaefer Yeah, I agree and we all agree that we need to look at this whole category of work and put some structure around it because we do not have that structure in place. And I am just wondering I I see members of the CPED staff here. If you could just in light of not just the moratorium but actually the time frame and some of these other initiatives that are coming forward today. If you could speak to high level what you know that we can and cannot regulate as we move into this work. And it can just be buckets if if that's amenable. Welcome. Could you introduce yourself? Jason Wittenberg CPED planning manager. Thank you for the question Council member Schaefer. CPED has been working on this uh for a number of months. We've been reaching out to external stakeholders. We are engaging internal stakeholders uh across the enterprise. We have a work plan that anticipates bringing this to a public hearing in uh October be before this uh body in the fall. Um we anticipate regulations that would govern the scale in terms of square footage of the use. Uh would indicate which um zoning districts this use would be allowed in. Uh as was noted earlier, this falls under a communication exchange uh currently in the in our city zoning code is not a perfect fit and is allowed quite broadly. Uh anything that we come up with is very likely to be more restrictive than what is currently uh the framework for a community communication exchange. Uh it's important to note that we uh cities in Minnesota do not have the ability to adopt regulations that uh affect building components and systems that are different than the state building code. Which means cities cannot adopt things like their own energy efficiency standards, their own water uh use standards. Uh happy to talk in the coming months with you all and the city attorney's office about the exact scope of those restrictions that are placed on us. Thank you. I appreciate kind of that um kind of a you know, just a offering of kind of what you've learned so far in this research process and I think everyone on this board is very excited about working collaboratively with CPEDC and collaboratively with the LRO group in really um learning everything there is to learn and and finding our lane. So, thanks so much. >> Um I I do want to just mention one thing that was mentioned around kind of the stacking of you know, 20 MW here, 20 MW there. That is all very um transparent. If you listen to the Public Utilities Commission meeting, that is definitely on their radar. And and those entities would be rolled up into a hyperscale financing model where they're paying the premium rates. So, that is not something that we can have jurisdiction over or nor do we need to fear um because of what the state work that is already underway. Um I would just say um um this is a moment in time where we can step up and um we do still have conditional use permits that nothing radical would come forward um even without a moratorium that we might be frightened or fearful about without this body's input and without this body's approval. And so I feel from my perspective that a moratorium is more of a placating measure for people who feel like it signals something um when in reality Please do not ascribe motives. So, yep. Um I I don't think this moratorium really is um something that we need because of the measures that we already do have in place even though they are limited. Um and so I will not be obviously supporting this and I I thank you um everyone for engaging around this issue and I look forward to more positive discussions um as we move forward. But but we want to do everything we can for our city at this moment in time to drive investment and to drive jobs. And so um a moratorium does not fit within that framework from my viewpoint. Council member Warren. Thank you um Council President Payne. In 1957, Minnesota became the home of the first supercomputer via Control Data. So, we foundationally have been a hub for um the legacy building and streamlining progressive movements that instrument change historically. That's just been a thing, okay? Um and so, data centers have been here. They've been here, they've been a part of our infrastructure. People are running data centers out of their homes farming cryptocurrency, okay? So, data centers have been used. I am completely for additional research and study as we dig deeper and look at, again, the the cumulative practices and understanding what long-term effects are and how those things, you know, move forward, but it I'm not for the word moratorium. I just I'm really having a hard time with that word moratorium. It has been thrown around too loosely in the last 6 months of me sitting here on this dais, and I I wish that word would just get flushed down the commode or something. I'm just over that word moratorium. But, I really really am for legislative directives. I'm really for legislative research opportunities that we dig deeper and and come together with ideas and ask difficult questions, and, you know, and really lean in to learn more as we go on through this process because no one has all of the answers, but it's going to take all of us in collective efficacy to ask different questions, to understand where it is that we're going futuristically. So, um I won't be supporting the moratorium, but I am supporting the continued legislative research in this opportunity. Thank you. Council member Chuck Thai. Thank you, Mr. President. I think there are a number of people and and I think that's that includes some of some of the folks in this room and on this dais who really truly believe that data centers are a viable solution to the city's building vacancy problem and this kind of thinking I think is is both short-sighted and is one that prioritizes profit over people. Prioritizes irresponsible development over community-centered development. >> [snorts] >> Data centers pose a risk to our grid to our water and to our environment and that's a fact. The EPA is now fast-tracking data centers because the Trump administration is bought and paid for by Big Tech. Last summer President Trump signed an executive order accelerating federal permitting of data centers and infrastructure around data centers and outlining the call for increased energy from coal and natural gas to power them. That massive and rushed push for data centers without care for consequences is not an organic one. It's not based on real demand. It is a campaign that is funded by corporations and their wealthy figureheads to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars who will do anything anything for another dollar to add to their billions. If we all know that, if we all claim to oppose that, then enacting a temporary moratorium is a reasonable and measured path forward. To continue to allow the rushed development of data centers in our city with no regulation in place, with no safeguards established, is to align with the oligarchs and the Trumpian tactics they use to line their pockets on the backs of working class people. With this kind of artificially created, rushed development of data centers all over the country, I don't believe anyone can tell me with any degree of confidence that if we let these data centers grow at this pace, we won't, 10 years from now, be staring at, once again, vacant buildings with now an additional crisis to our energy and water supply. Data centers are not a solution, they are a poison. I'm so proud of our city government's adopted climate equity plan, which outlines a roadmap to achieve some of the strongest and most ambitious climate goals in the country. Our city is investing, on top of that, historic resources to build resilience to climate to the climate crisis and dedicating millions of dollars every year to this effort. For the last four years, I've represented the city as a member of the Clean Energy Partnership, and one of the biggest challenges we see in our efforts to meet our city's climate goals is the disproportionate amount of energy that's used by the commercial and industrial sector. Even if every single home in Minneapolis was fully weatherized and using clean energy alternatives, even if every person in our city reduced their carbon footprint with intention, the city cannot meet our climate goals without significant reductions to the commercial and industrial sectors energy usage. We've known this for years. A single mid-size data center uses as much energy as 40 to 50,000 homes. What is the point of having adopted climate goals and investing significant time and money towards meeting them if we're just going to allow data centers to completely undermine any progress we're making? If you, like I do, believe in people over profit, if you believe in real, lasting, and community-centered solutions to our vacant building problem, if you believe that Minneapolis tap water is superior to everywhere in the country and needs to stay that way, if you believe that the climate crisis in is real and that we must meet this crisis with the urgency it deserves if we have a chance to weather and survive, then you'll join me in voting yes for a moratorium. If it were up to me, today we would just be passing a year-long moratorium with no exemption, but I know that's not how democracy works and I don't I know that's not where the will of this body is, and that if this amendment that the Council Vice President has brought forward fails, we are likely to see no moratorium at all and risk my neighbors and every person in our community waking up in the very near future to an unregulated, power-sucking, and water-poisoning monstrosity in their backyard. I find that to be unacceptable, so in order to make sure that we make some meaningful progress today, I'll be supporting this amendment. Thank you. Council Member Rainville. Thank you, and uh I want to thank Council Member Warren. Uh as the official spoken word artist of the council, you're you're correct about words. Words are important, and moratorium is a terrible word for us to use uh for this subject. So, I will be voting no on this uh proposed amendment. We have We could solve this problem in a whole different way than using a moratorium, and we're all smart enough to do that if we talk to each other and listen to each other. Council Member Chughtai. Thank you so much, uh President Payne. I think I just want to uplift again, like there's varying perspectives up here and those perspectives represent the varying perspectives that exist in our city. There needs to be a lot of work to do popular education around this issue to better understand what this means for the city of Minneapolis. What this means for our water systems and our existing infrastructure. It's important. And so if you're out and you're listening to this right now, you're watching the council meeting, I encourage you to reach out to your council member and talk about this issue. Like this is a moment to lean in. If you're in this room, schedule meetings with every single person to share your perspective. It's really important. I really want to encourage us to get out of this like tendency that we can have to go into our corners when we really do have a good opportunity to come and meet right in the middle. Um I have a couple questions. Uh one is for Mr. Wittenberg, if that's all right. Um if you could kind of explain uh the the 350,000 square feet and like what that correlates to and how CPED offered that to us. Mr. Wittenberg. Thank you uh Council Member Chavez. So there is not a great direct correlation between the power used in megawatts and the square footage of a data center. Generally, of course, the larger the data center, the more power capacity you're going to you're going to have there. But the uh range in megawatts of a 350,000 square foot data center could be tremendous. Uh it could accommodate a a a 40 megawatt data center. It could accommodate a 75 megawatt data center. Um I will say that data centers are getting more efficient in their use of space. They're putting more power capacity into smaller spaces compared to the data centers that have historically existed in Minneapolis. Thank you. And I think that's like important piece to to highlight like how that CPED kind of put that together and also highlight the issue that we have around square footage and megawatts like that's something we have to go to the state to figure out. And I want to highlight to folks what's on the table is a 6-month pause. The 350 square feet in downtown. Which is that range that you shared what was it? 40 to 50 75 something like that. I I mean like that's a significant exemption. I already made my feelings known about that. But I also wanted to just take a second to highlight what are the next steps. So if this moves forward then we will have this go to the Business Housing and Zoning Committee and then we will set a public hearing. I believe on June 16th and then yeah June 16th and then we'll take a final vote on the action on June 25th. So there are other points of engagement for our community here. And I think that's also a huge part of why we're taking up our ordinances but additionally this pause is like this work the research that our legislative research team is going to do alongside CPED to better educate us and give us real fact-based information will not only come to council members but will be publicly available to our community. And that's really needed in this space. So I just wanted to highlight those next steps. Council member Stevenson. Uh thank you, Council President. Um thank you for everyone who came here today to watch these proceedings. It is not fun. You've been here for hours at this point. Um I just need to lead with where I'm coming from on this, and that is that my constituents are freaked out about data centers. That's just the case. My constituents, I've gotten hundreds and hundreds of emails saying we don't want any data centers at all. Um and so, to the advocates for data centers, you have not uh you have not convinced my neighbors that we should have this. And so, this is something that that is vital. If the people of Minneapolis are screaming at me that they do not want data centers, then I have to at least listen to that in some way. So, I I need uh folks who are up here saying that data centers are going to solve all our issues, uh you got to talk to my neighbors first, because my neighbors come first uh when it comes to to this conversation. Um I also uh want to say that I I live in a special ward. I have many, many LIUNA members, many, many AFSCME members, MPA. I have many uh workers in my in my ward. They're also residents, too. And so, when I'm looking out for uh the needs of workers, I also need to be looking out for the needs of residents. Um there is huge risk to our energy bills here. When we expand data centers, and we need an upgraded substation at some point, or new lines, or something, those that is what Xcel passes on to ratepayers. And so, we need provisions, we need regulations that's going to say if data centers are going to induce a lot of uh infrastructure spending by Xcel, that those those uh expenses need to be passed on to the data centers and not to you so that your electricity bills are not going up uh to subsidize uh data centers. Um it it's a little ironic that we're having this conversation uh and and really pushing back on any sort of meaningful regulation and pause when we just had the river resolution where we talked about how the river was ecologically dead before and now we're in a place where it is so much healthier uh and yet still we know there is so much uh work to be done. Um so this also gets into what is a city for? A city is for homes, a city is for jobs, a city is for amenities. Uh we know data centers will create building jobs and once they're built they really don't include a lot of jobs afterwards. Uh and so that doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist at all, it just is something that we need to be aware of. And currently our regulations are uh according to staff really not aware of almost anything. Um so we we really really need to dig into this topic and I know we're going to dig into this topic but this these are all reasons why a very temporary 6-month pause is incredibly reasonable at this point. Um this amendment is really an example of compromising. Um the mayor has said he will veto anything that is less than a 100 megawatt moratorium uh and so many people on this dais have said that they want zero data centers in the city. We are looking at something that allows between 40 and 75 megawatts. That's right in the middle. This is this is compromise. If we're going to have a government that's compromising, this is exactly it. So um I I just got to say that nobody is getting what they want here in their entirety. This is This really is a product of compromise. Um and so I will be supporting this moratorium because we do need a pause to do the right thing on data centers. As an example of something that we really need to be thinking about, uh a few years back, was it four or five years back, there was a polar vortex. I remember when Texas froze and uh that one Republican senator was in Cancun. Uh when that happened, um our gas bills spiked because there was a shortage of gas cuz it was cold all over the country. Um this is an example of when we need data centers to have battery backup so that they're not inducing increased gas spike that we are still paying for today. Uh where you see it in the news headlines over and over. Xcel and the PUC fighting back and forth about who's going to pay for that specific spike. This is just one very small example of something that our regulations need to be aware of and currently our regulations are aware of nothing. Um so we do need to dig in and we do need a little bit of time to come up with something that's going to be smart. Um and uh including something that's going to be feedback. Uh the public has been so clear to me that they want a moratorium and the public uh needs to be brought in on this conversation a lot a lot more um if they're going to get to a place where they can accept data centers at all. I mean, I just I just can't get past this point about how my neighbors are telling me no data centers at all. So what what are we talking about up here if all my neighbors are telling me something else? So understanding that data centers are a part of our future, we need to be bringing our residents along with us and that's just non-negotiable. They need to have input in this and they will have input in this by having 6 months to think, to talk, to listen, and to to grapple with future regulations. This is the start of a conversation. This is not the end of a conversation. I want to thank Dan for having conversation with me about this. I want to thank other folks who have spoken to me about this. I have a a meeting set up with the sheet metal workers and I need more more meetings. I see some other logos out here that I don't have a meeting with yet. So, please let's schedule that. We have a lot to talk about. And I need to talk to my constituents. My constituents are are not on board with data centers and I need to be speaking with them about this because this is this is really concerning to them. And lastly, we need regulation that is going to protect everyone. That being residents, that being workers, that being our tax base, that being the river and our water supply, that being the air, and that being a populated and thriving downtown. If we devote a significant chunk of our downtown to data centers, that is a significant chunk of our downtown that is not housing, that is not office space, that is not retail, that is not places where people are. Our downtown should not be quiet except for the hum of data centers. Our downtown needs to be thriving, needs to be abundant. And thank you. Vice President Osman. Thank you. My last comment on this, I did what I was supposed to do, which is the leg work. I went to downtown, talked to the data center folks, had that conversation with them. And my approach here is a balanced, responsible way of approaching. And we don't need to be one-sided extreme to another. We have to approach the work we do as a balanced way. We are responsible for 420, 4,000 people uh, in the city of Minneapolis. And as I understand the growth of economy is very important to downtown, but also being responsible approach of data centers also has its importance. We cannot just give the green light and say no no moratorium, no nothing, let's just do everything. That's not the way you approach any business. Uh, so as a elected officials, we are responsible being looking at [clears throat] it looking at it in so many different ways and not just having one opinion and running with it. You have to approach it in a different way. And that's what we did. We visited a building. We saw the capacity. We calculated the numbers that we're coming up with is a calculated number that will not put uh, work that will that will not stop work that will have many opportunity and welcoming uh, uh, new companies in our downtown uh, to do businesses, give workers an opportunity to work, at the same time be responsible for the neighbor neighbor neighbors as Council member Chavez talked about. As a as places we spend, places we play, we sleep. Being responsible. And I think that that is just uh, some something that all we are all obligated to do it. Um, if you like it data center or not, it doesn't really matter here. It's about responsibility. And my approach here please tell me if this is number is a problem. Is there a a job that will stop for this number? Is there a building that will stop doing work because of this number? In our calculation as we talked about money days here, talked to money expertise this is the number that makes sense to me for workers to continue working for data centers to continue existing in our downtown core, which is the where we're seeing most more action happening. And um and I think that is that is my point of approaching and and and being balanced. It's it's it's the way to approach it. Otherwise, we're just going to keep getting one-sided vote and uh veto all over every time. If we're If we don't come together, if we don't compromise, if we don't do what makes sense, um it's it's just it's going to the business is going to be the same way as we're going to see veto and the mayor even threatened this being vetoed before it even got here. We know how much he loves that pen knife in it. It's just that we're asking him to to be on the table and think about the concerns of residents. That is really You are the leader of the city of Minneapolis. Think about the concerns. Don't brush it off. No one should be one-sided support. You have to be balanced in a way, and that is just not us only, but also the mayor. So, for us, I'll give my staff really thumbs up for for the work they have done, for the legwork they did, for the conversation we had working with the with the author, working with my colleagues, having a conversation with them, and coming up with this number is what makes sense. So, let's let's all of us vote for this number and this compromise cuz it's it's not both extreme. It's just right in the middle. Thank you. Council member Whiting. Thank you, President Payne. [clears throat] And And just a a quick question for Mr. Wittenberg, if if you wouldn't mind. Thank you. Um I'm looking at uh member Osman and also maybe a question for Council Member Osman if he knows as well. I'm just want to be clear here as I'm as I'm reading uh the additions here in subsection C um, where we are talking about the restriction imposed by this section shall not apply to data centers consisting of less than 3,050 350,000 uh square feet of newer expanded space. So, when we are talking uh new space particularly, if I am a uh data center developer, uh can I buy a building larger than that 350,000? Can I invest into a building that is larger than the 350,000 square feet, but I can only use 350,000 square feet for this 6 months? Is that correct or am I reading that wrong? Uh Council Member Whiting, thank you for the question. That would be consistent with our understanding is that you could purchase a million square foot building and and establish data center up to that 350,000 square feet. And then as the language is written here, uh with this 350, I can build out a facility up to 350,000 square feet of data center usage. And so, that for that this 6-month uh moratorium piece. That's correct, yeah. Okay, thank you. Uh and that's all. Uh just to add in here too, it sounds like in my understanding again, uh happy to have C-Peder others correct me uh if this is wrong, but that the Sleep Number space I think a lot of us toured. Uh I think their current build-out is around 200,000 square feet. Um, so they are are are currently under that 350,000 square feet number. It sounds like would have another 150,000 square feet that they could build up to within the 6-month time period. And so, uh it sounds like you know, it's it's to Council Member Osman's points and other council members up here uh don't want to stifle that business in their current build-out, um but then also putting some parameters around it. And so, uh just wanted to get that, and so thank you for the for the clarification. Council member Palmisano. Mr. Chair, data centers in Minneapolis aren't poisoning our water. Their current use of water doesn't actually deviate that much from that of other buildings downtown. I moved to Minnesota due to IBM. They moved me here to literally work as an account manager on data centers. Words matter, and acting as though these relatively small data centers are massively polluting or poisoning people, that's both false and it's offensive. So, I won't be able to support this, though I am trying to find middle ground. Using square footage for data centers is not a good lever. Like Mr. Wittenberg said, there's enormous variation there. I'd be surprised if there aren't already 350,000 square foot data centers here, because they were when I moved here. They were when I worked in them. And by the way, we weren't poisoning people then, either. I don't mean to scare your neighbors, but they've been around for a very, very long time. What I'd like to know from my colleagues that are supporting this is that we have really skilled staff who've been looking at this already for quite some time. I believe in you, city staff, and I think you could come back with recommendations very quickly, in less than 6 months for sure. But to my colleagues, can I get your commitment that as soon as staff comes back with recommendations that we can support, that you would be willing to move forward with a regulatory framework? That might be some good middle ground. I think that's possible in more like 6 weeks. I think that you put this moratorium together in the wrong way. I think you are doing this in the wrong order, and I do not see middle ground or common sense in this number that you say is a negotiation. It is not middle ground. 350,000 square feet. Not a single one of you brought it to me, but that's fine. But you cannot say that this is middle ground. Computing power has gotten vastly more efficient. What we all walk around with in our phones is an example of it. But data centers exist, and if you use your phone, if you use your laptop, you're using data centers, too. If you look things up on the modern-day internet, you need them, too. The idea of this zero data centers in our city, it sounds like that hasn't been the case. It sounds like that hasn't been the case since 1957. Councilmember Shafer. Yeah, I just want to clarify a couple misconceptions too that I heard on the um from the dais. But obviously through this process, we are going to have lots of uh constituent engagement. Um if you looked at the timeline detail, there will be 60 days of public comment, and there will be a public hearing. I've heard informally there's going to be educational materials that CPED and others are going to be putting out because there is a lot of misinformation, and there is legitimate fear as well around what some of these hyperscale data centers are bringing to our a suburban and rural communities, and we do need to be thoughtful around all of this. But I am the first one to raise my hand and said, "We absolutely have to have community engagement, and we absolutely have to have a a thoughtful um non-combative discussion around an issue that I think has become based in a lot of different emotions. So, I'm I'm looking forward to that public comment and hearing from constituents. Number two, um this idea that all of our electric bills will go up has already been um talked about. Um the analogy they gave at the Public Utilities Commission was a group of friends coming to happy hour and ordering nachos. And then their hungry hungry runner friend shows up and wants to order a steak. He They're not going to pay for his steak. He has to pay for his steak. And even if he didn't eat the nachos, he's paying for part of the nachos because he's at the table. So, there will be a premium rate, and they will also pay part of the regular rate. And they will actually help fund aging infrastructure with private money that regularly Excel would have to fund with public dollars. That's a big deal. And so, infrastructure that's already aging, that already may need to be replaced or upgraded or expanded will be paid for by those who need that infrastructure. And will benefit the whole. So, there is data that we should probably look at to really make sure that it's true. That actually in the cases it is driving down residents rates. Um the other thing I just want to mention because time is of essence on this issue. Investment will go elsewhere. And I just want to read the best example that we have of what it does for a community's property tax base is in Loudoun County, Virginia. Data centers there cover just 4% of commercial land, but they generate half of the property tax revenue. And the county has cut residential property tax rates every single year for the past decade as a result. And so that is something we can look at. What are What has been that That's probably a hyperscale example. But we can we can dig into all these examples, and that's what I'm looking forward to the research that CPED and others will bring forward so that we can clarify some of the misinformation, that we can clarify ideas that are out there that may not be grounded in reality. Thank you. Councilmember Chughtai. Thank you, Mr. President. Um to my colleague's question earlier about the appetite or the will from this body to to adopt regulations that are product of CPED staff's work on on data centers. I I would I would point the the body and and those watching along today to our agenda. And under the of ordinance introductions, which we'll get to here shortly, I see Councilmember Shafer, Council President Payne, Councilmember Rainville, Pita, Warren, Council Vice President Osman, Councilmember Whiting, Choudrey, Pamosano, and and myself will be giving a notice of intent to advance this policy. I think the will to adopt regulations is very clearly there. I I see it on the agenda in front of me. Um the second thing I want to I want to um just address is um what feels to me like minimizing or infantilizing concerns about the expansion of of data centers in our city and and across the country and cities across the country. That that it is minimized or infantilized as fear of the future, fear of reality. Um fear of our changing economy. And and I think that that's you know, I've heard I've heard those types of concerns said from this dais today. I've also heard them coming from advocates. Um What what I want us to be grounded in is the fact that on top of the $25 million that Greg Brockman, who's the the founder of Open AI, gave to the Trump Super PAC. He also created a $100 million Super PAC with the sole express purpose of fighting regulation of AI safety and and regulations across the country at the state and local levels. There is a concerted heavily moneyed $100 million fighting regulations. People are not afraid of the future. I'm not afraid of the future. Critics of the expansion of data centers are not afraid of the future. We're rightfully critical of the far-right big tech oligarchs fighting regulations such as this. I think that that's a shared Minneapolis value. I'm excited to to continue and and vote on this. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Seeing no one else left in queue, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on the package of the underlying motion with the Osman amendment. Council member Rainville. No. Can Can I clarify one thing? Are we voting on all You mentioned all three. No, no, no, no. This is just the referral of the moratorium as amended by Vice President Osman. Okay, did we already take a vote on the amendment? I I'm I'm doing them together. Are you requesting that we take a divided vote? Well, you would did already without exception. Yeah, we already made them all. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. >> Okay. Mr. Clerk. Thank you. Council member Rainville. No. Vita. No. Palmisano. No. Chavez. Aye. Warren. No. Sheehan. No. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Wedding. Aye. Chaudhry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are eight ayes and five nays. That That item [clears throat] carries. Our next order of business is item number is new business item number four, which is a staff direction related to data centers. As this is also from Council member Chaudhry, I will ask her to introduce the item and make a motion for approval. This is a staff direction, correct? Yes, absolutely. So, um I know that we have uh Andrew Hawkins from our LRO team somewhere in the back. So, I'm going to give him a second to kind of come into the room. Yeah. Um so, there was a lot of conversation about how it's really important for us to make sure that we have accurate information about what does it mean for data centers in our city, especially different parts of our city and the considerations that we have to make. And so, we put together the staff direction, me, Council member Osman, Council member Wansley, and myself to look at several areas that feels important to research as a city. That includes um different types of data centers, landscape analysis across governments, understanding the financial impact, understanding what are the environmental and energy impacts. And I wanted to give um uh Director Hawkins maybe just like a minute to kind of share like what the process will look like and what your team will be working on cooperatively and collaboratively with CPED. Um good morning or 1 minute from afternoon. Um the Council members, I'm Andrew Hawkins. I'm the director of legislative research and oversight. Um for this staff direction, again, much like most of the ones that we get, anytime that we're looking at anything that's going to be specific to Minneapolis, um we're very deliberate about how we go about that. Um the role of legislative research and oversight is not to replace subject matter expertise in the city, um rather to supplement the available research and data gathering um like that we have. Um we have a very talented team and again, like often times we're able to support this through, you know, just like other connections we made just across the different cities that we've worked with um over the years since our stand up. Um for this one, I think the important um like piece is know recognizing the work that's already being done by the city's um CPED staff. Um it's going to be to connect with them and kind of have an understanding for what like that work entails, what's um like currently being undertaken, and figure out where there's um areas of opportunity to supplement um the available research, um look look at additional areas, provide additional support um to bolster what's ultimately going to come back uh to the City Council and ensure that you have as much information in front of you to make the decisions that you're tasked with making. Um it's also again um the nature of our research isn't to come to any um distinct conclusion. Uh we don't make that's something that's left for the departments and the administration side to speak to their subject matter and what they think is going to be the best um path for the um forward for the city. So again um a worst-case scenario is you know, there's um something that's being done by another city that we are able to you know, um speak with them, highlight if they don't think it's a good idea, then they can ex- simply explain why to the council and the councils but allowed to make the decision that it feels is um in the best interest of the city. So happy to be collaborative and um move forward on this. Thank you. Council member Wansley. Thank you, President Payne. Um I also wanted to offer some information uh around what is requested in this legislative directive that really points to why it's critical for this body um to have as much information as possible as we debate what a regulatory framework for data centers will look like for the coming months. And I think of this which is doing a preliminary assessment when you mention of what's the national landscape looking like um as it comes or pertains to data centers. And we are seeing people all over the country telling horror stories about what data centers promise initially, what they delivered, all pointing to the need for us to be cautious and to to actually take the time to get information around what the impacts could be, will be, um and how to best prepare. Uh just thinking of some of those examples, this past Tuesday, the LA Times published a story called a surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians Californians and about how data center expansion in one state is likely to cause electricity rates to go up for the nearby towns just over the border. Another uh story highlighted uh data center in Georgia which set up two unauthorized water pipes and drained 30 million gallons of water far beyond the amount that they were authorized to to do and regulators only stepped in when residents noticed that their water pressure in their homes was extremely low and the data center had to pay back the utility company company for the stolen water but you can't get water back once it's been used. Another story recently pointed to a group of residents in Texas who are suing a big tech company for a data center alleging constant noise and low frequency hum from the site have contributed to numerous health issues for nearby residents including cardiac problems, tinnitus, permanent hearing loss and insomnia. A recent poll from Gallup also found that 7 in 10 Americans oppose data centers. So there is more unity in this country than there has ever been for elected official or political party and I think that says a lot for why we need to have a foundational understanding of what we're dealing with as opposed to walking in just intentionally and excitedly with the red carpet. And in light of this, I will name two with this lack of information, I think we run into situations like what I did this morning when I came into the office where I was was met off the elevator with this sign that says don't push jobs and investments out of our city. And I think this is supposed to be a data center over here, this shiny building but what I will note is even for those and I think this is moving or asking us to oppose the data center but it doesn't even use the word data center because there's a common understanding and some information around what is it existing in the national landscape, data centers are being perceived toxic as toxic toxic. And there are a number of municipalities across the country who are having to generate information that we will look at because they bear at the proactive cost because they didn't do the work that we're trying to do right now. And I just want to make sure that we're not leaning leaning into the the platitudes of growth and promises that Big Tech is making to us that has nothing to do with data without making sure we get the information that we need ourselves and making sure that we are not green-lighting Big Tech's newest pet project, which are data centers, without having that data. So, this is what this legislative directive does. It asks for impacts and information on water use, water temperature impacts, energy grid capacity, energy costs, zoning, noise pollution, jobs, taxes, revenues, and so much more. And this is the bare minimum information that any responsible legislative body would need as we consider how to regulate the existence of data centers in Minneapolis. Um, and I really urge my colleagues to support this um this motion. Council Member Warren. Thank you so much, Council President. Um in this this uh legislative uh direction for research, I want to just point out that a lot of the research and information that is currently being done around data centers are in states that don't have the infrastructure to support them at all. So, the horror stories that we're hearing around data centers and around data center development in states like Nevada, Atlanta, Texas, Michigan, are those places that already had failing infrastructures already, okay? Michigan's water infrastructure was failing. Texas electrical grid is so choppy, it doesn't even know which direction it wants to go, okay? Um we're looking at in in Georgia, and these are hotter climate states also, too, you know? So looking at the climate and the climate infrastructure and the fact that again, since 1957, since the inception of controlled data here in the state of Minnesota, the home of the first supercomputer, we have hosted data centers throughout here. Now what I want to ensure that whatever information and researched information that is brought back to this body, that we actually hear and heed the truth that is in that and and not be oppositional to the truth and understanding and trusting of whatever expertise and legal advisement and counsel that is given to this body because historically, I've not seen that be very true for us, you know? That that we'll hear something, we'll know and understand it to be truth, to be right and exact coming from, you know, our our departmental directors or our legal team, and then there's opposition to what it is that's being said. So I want to ensure that we are going to be, you know, very intentional about taking the information that is given and that we use proper measures and matrix talking specifically about the climate and jurisdiction and our infrastructure here within the state of Minnesota, it's difficult to do comparison contrast when we've been the hub in leading industry around technology and technology and techno um the advancement here in the state of Minnesota. We start the Mississippi. Everything comes from us. So, let's just take those things into consideration here in the land of over 10,000 lakes, in the land of lakes, okay? And and look at how the development has benefited our infrastructure here, which is the reason why we're able to provide such grave advancement and so many different things to the country as it stands. So, I just I just want to put that there. We stand here Minnesota at the top of the map for a reason, and that's because we've been leading the charge in a lot of different things, and that has made the headlines across the United States. I want to welcome the research because I'm curious about a lot of things and have a lot of questions. However, I want to just make sure that myself, in addition to members of this body, take the information and truly absorb what is true and what is you know, what needs to be understood. Thank you. Council member Vitae. Thank you, um President Payne. I I guess I'm a little confused about the process that's happening here. So, Council member Scheffer, I know has been working on um getting some background information for what um how we move forward and just wondering how how we how this differs, this legislative directive that is just uh come before us. How is this different than what Council member Scheffer has been doing thus far and like I It feels like these votes are out of order. Like we should have heard from Council member Scheffer first. I mean, she's the one who had been giving background uh this past month with even the announcement of a moratorium saying that the goal was to get some some staff direction and to work towards understanding how we lead this work in the city. So I'm just wondering how this staff direction differs from this this notice of ordinance introductions that has a lot of names on it that was supposed to offer the same thing. I'm not sure who that's a question for. I mean As a co-author I'll name what was already laid out procedurally is the item and measure that council member Schaefer and a number of our colleagues are bringing forward does not require a vote. It does not give a directive for any staff to come and actually execute on some of the broader things and the required things. That is what this legislative motion is asking our staff to do and that's the difference. We are asking them to carry out analysis. That's part of the overall like process that we'll do in the next coming months while the moratorium is in place. Okay, great. Council member Chu Tai Thank you thank you Mr. President. I um I if it's amenable with the authors I would love to co-author this legislative directive with them. Excellent. Thank you. Council member Schaefer Yeah, I I I'll speak to a little bit to this. I you know it was several weeks ago that I introduced the timeline after speaking with CPED staff and really chatted with council member Chaudhary and others about you know working together on this but was asked to delay it until this time May 21st. So I was surprised to see this come forward this week. But through dialogue with my colleagues, um I feel there could be value to doing this at the same time. I really appreciated some of the edits that I was able to make. Now, I would like to clarify that what is in the LIMS file is not is not what's before us here, and I'm not sure anybody has addressed that, but basically what's in the LIMS file under this is is not what we're voting on. Is that correct, Council member Sawant? Yeah, they need to update the LIMS file because we brought the revised version this morning. >> So, just so everyone knows, I believe this revised version is much stronger than what was originally in the LIMS, and it has a date of August 18th to get this information back to us before the public hearing so that this allows us to really have a lot of this research available for the public. And Council member Sawant and I are really going to be working and trying to bring this together kind of dovetail these actions together. And you'll notice one of the items phrases that I added at the bottom just to make sure that we're not trying to do competing initiatives here is to work closely this directive is to work closely and cooperatively with the Community Planning and Economic Development Department with CPED, who has already spent several months researching this. And so they are taking the lead, but we are also doing additional scope of research that may be beyond the capacity of CPED to do in some of these categories, but we're definitely going to lean heavily on what CPED has already been able to research. So, that's some comments, and I will be supporting this motion. Council member Sawant Thank you, Council President Paint. I'm trying to look in my documents. I'm kind of confused. So, Council member Sawant, are you bringing forward another legislative directive that I don't see on here? No, I'm just bringing forward the motion to introduce the ordinance changes around data centers. So, you're the notice of intent, which is not a directive to staff. Okay, I just want to clarify so the public isn't confused. >> would encourage everyone to go into that file and look cuz there's about three pages of how that work will unfold. For sure, but that you're not bringing forward a legislative directive. Correct. So, I just want to clarify to the public there is no directive being brought forward by Councilmember Sheffer. She's doing a notice of intent with a variety of different authors. The only direction to staff is coming from Councilmember Chaudhry, Councilmember Wanzie, and Councilmember Osman. I don't want the public to get confused about the difference between a notice of intent and a difference of a staff direction. So, I just want to clarify for the public Councilmember Sheffer is bringing a notice of intent with a variety of different authors. The only person bringing a legislative directive is Chaudhry, Wanzie, and Osman. All right. And the question I have for the item before us on this motion is point number three. It's asked for analysis on the potential fiscal and economic development implications associated with data center development. I guess one of the concerns that I want to address, and I hope this addresses when it comes before us, is the definition of economic development. Does that include workers? Does that include the implication of job losses? Cuz one of the concerns I have with AI data centers is that it would maybe lead to potential temporary jobs, but then literally lay off a whole bunch of our workers when we automize the kind of work that happens in our city, right? We're going to talk about autonomous vehicles that we're then going to steal the jobs of Uber and Lyft drivers. Autonomous vehicles, or in the future autonomous trucks that are going to steal the jobs of our construction workers. You know, and that's you know, that is something that needs to be addressed. And this is what something what data centers can be implicated in. And I want to make sure that this directive the definition of economic development also includes workers. So, I guess if the authors would answer that, does that definition of economic development include workers here? Council Member Chaudhary. I would I would defer to Director Hawkins as he's going to take up the research. I mean, for me I want to ensure that we're considering jobs and impact on workers across the board. Um through the chair uh to Council Member Chavez um I think one of the the things that again we're always going to try to do with these reports is be very very clear about how we're defining any specific area. Um so, in terms of what that's going to look like, I think that as we get into the that part of the research being able to spell out what this is explicitly like referring to. Um I I know there's studies out there that will look at various parts that would all fall under that kind of larger economic development umbrella. Um so, for any you know, specific report sections that come forward, I think it'll be very important that staff are deliberate about um defining it. Um this has come up already on this topic, but this is obviously an area that has become very nebulous where what what it means, what's big, what's small, what's medium. Um so, I think that just in general any work around this needs to be very very clear um with with how it's defining the definitions that it's going to be using um in order for it to have the value and be helpful for any decision-making process that will follow. >> [snorts] >> Thank you. I guess I just want to make sure that if the workers are going to be reflected in this staff direction, I guess it's a motion. Um and if not, I would like to know that ahead of time so we can bring forward that action. So, I just want to clear that up before we vote on this, but [clears throat] I support this. Through the chair um yes, I mean I think that one of the major conversations around this has been the impact to um the employment and um workforce. So, that's something that we're going to want to look at. Council Member Chaudhary. Yeah, thank you, Council President Payne. Um I just wanted to take some time uh to kind of I mean uplift the fact that like we're finding ways to work together. I think like that's a good thing and I want to thank the co-authors on this, but I do want to thank Councilmember Schaefer. So initially with the notice of intents for the ordinance that we're looking at she shared that she was moving. I had a conversation about noticing these ordinances as well and it turned into a conversation where it's like, okay, like we are working on this together and we're co-authoring and we have been dialoguing and I was appreciative that she took my ask and my advice to bring all of the data center stuff to this day and just kind of lined it up. And then she had some pretty helpful feedback for the legislative directive. Of course, like there are three authors, but everyone on the body has a voice and a vote on the matter and um and we're co-authoring the the the ordinances that are related to this and so it does go hand in hand and I'll say like this provides us to really utilize what our LRO team is for when we have something that requires deep deep research and additional capacity to C Fed who is very busy in our enterprise across several issues. Like this is where LRO can really support and deepen the scope. I think it's a good thing to celebrate the collaboration between our administrative departments and our LRO team and I know LRO is doing learning labs. I put on as a suggestion that one of our learning labs be data centers and I think it is related to this legislative directive and I think it goes back to yeah, like more information is good for us and we should know to the fullest extent everything that we can know about the concerns that several of of us have brought up. So, I just wanted to highlight all of that because this is good work that is happening. Council Member Schaefer. Yes, I agree with Council Member Chaudry and um in the spirit of working together, um I would like to be listed as a co-author if that's possible and anyone else that may have been listed on the other one that may be interested in being a co-author. Yeah, okay. All right, we will get that straightened out. Council Member Warren. I just have a question um and to my my council colleague um Council President, may I ask Council um my council colleague Jason Chavez a question, were you asking about jobs current as they stand? Council Member Chavez. I yes, I will answer that question. I'm talking about uh when you build data centers and you start building these facilities, you can obviously create short-term jobs. My concerns with data centers is that it will steal jobs in the long term when you start to atomize the industry of different job markets in our city. Okay. That was my question because I think we just helped a a few people become jobless around this moratorium that are going to have to lean into the union and wait to be dispatched out into other opportunities. So, if we're concerned about economic development and ensuring that people can feed their families and take care of you know, their bills and and send their kids off to school and do whatever with the moratorium that we just recently voted on, we just employed some folks who are now going to have to wait with the help of the union to be dispatched out to another opportunity and although unions do provide um our community members and our constituents with, you know, the insurance of job stability. There is a state period that they have to wait for someone to dispatch them out to another job. So, um, just, you know, wanted to point that out since we were questioning about if individuals were were going to be working short-term, long-term, or whatever that looks like right now because now there's going to be, you know, some people trying to figure it out and and hoping and bidding on on the best opportunity, hopefully, that that comes their direction that is going to meet their pay scale according to whatever it is that they're jurisdictioned underneath the union. So, um, that's that's really important to uplift because those jobs don't come by every day and and we have very skilled workers that serve in the union. I'm I'm union raised. My father was a foreman for the City of Minneapolis Bridge Department for many, many years. And so, you know, knowing and understanding how how unions work and the fact that a lot of those individuals are minorities and we fight very hard to ensure that minorities are dispatched out to, um, to work and that we get fair and equal treatment within unions. Um, if we're just worrying about jobs and folks income, I just wanted to just put that right there. The end. Council member Warsame. Yeah, thank you. Uh, President Payne, I will note too, there are some significant changes between what was submitted cuz I want to emphasize not only with the shared concern around jobs, especially since we actually have no data to affirm what we just heard around job loss. We actually don't know at the scale of having accumulative addition of small to mid-level, uh, data centers, actually how many long long-term jobs are coming from that? And I think this is a great conversation that many of us will have with our labor leaders, >> [clears throat] >> where it's sad that time and time again we see in our efforts to maintain uh some of our most critical infrastructures and our priorities around like the environment, often times labor or working-class people are pitted against that um time and time again and it's used as a basis of in order for you to earn a living, you need to do this harmful thing. And it's also a short-term thing. So, this is why I'm actually glad that we're talking about taking a fuller analysis as opposed to being okay with the dopamine hit of we might get something readily, but then no one is working to sustain these data centers 5 years from out, 1 year from out. Like we should have that information. Another thing that is not fully spelled out that was in the original motion was also the revenue. Because so many people have talked about the prospects of tax revenue that's coming in, has referenced the Sleep Number uh building particularly, and we don't know how much of that revenue is actually coming into Minneapolis to help us build housing or anything else. So, I would love to have as part of that economic analysis to to actually have a broader sense of what are we talking about with the scale of revenue? Um especially since we're all apparently on board to figure out how we're bringing in new revenue streams that doesn't allow, you know, property tax or property taxes to be the main driver of that revenue um and meaning regular working-class people. Um so, I think we all want to see people pay their fair share um but I want to note to though that fair share means actual corporate companies paying into it, not these immediate hits, not these like promises of potential revenue streams. We're talking about year over year, over year. Um and that actually could sustain our city's resources and our residents. So, I will note that also is not fully spelled out in this directive, but from my understanding, that will be included in the economic analysis, as well. Okay. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. Okay. Great. Wanted to get that clarification. Thank you. I added myself to queue, just uh kind of reflecting. I'm I'm of that generation that grew up on the internet. I'm about as old as you can be and still be a millennial. And I still have the nostalgia for that whine of the dial-up modem connecting to a bulletin board system. And so, from what that technology it was back in the '80s or '90s to now, uh these are very different scales of impact. And I think, especially when you come from a world of nostalgia, um there was a lot of positive association with technology. And use euphemisms like the cloud to describe fairly intensive >> [snorts] >> scale of infrastructure. And I think language like the cloud obfuscated the actual scope of this infrastructure. And I think that this legislative directive is so valuable because we need to actually have a more transparent understanding of what those costs are, because I think the entire Big Tech industry has privatized their profits and socialized the costs. And those costs are not just labor costs, those costs are environmental costs, those costs are um the mental health crisis that young people have from comparing themselves to on social media, uh let alone the unknown costs that might emerge when it comes to what it means to deploy AI without any worker protections, right? And I think that you know, we we very much appreciate your expertise in LRO, but these are also questions that are existential in many ways. And I think that I'm I'm glad that we're engaging with this topic in such a deep way and in such a collaborative way. And so, I'm I'm excited about moving this forward. Uh so, with that, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on the legislative directive. Councilmember Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Warren. Aye. Shafer. >> Aye. Wanzong. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Whiting. Aye. Chaudry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries. And our last thing uh is the notice of ordinance introduction. We pulled the first item up, and I'm going to suggest we read off this notice and take a short recess, everyone, before we get into our committee reports. Cuz we have a full actual meeting ahead of us still. So, um on the notice of ordinance introduction, Councilmember Shafer, Chaudry, Payne, Rainville, Vita, Warren, Osman, Whiting, and Palmisano give notice of intent to introduce at the next regular meeting of the City Council Your [snorts] mic. No, it's on. We can't hear you. >> We couldn't hear. I got you. Uh give do do do do do do intent to introduce at the next regular meeting of the City Council the subject matter of an ordinance amending the zoning code, amending regulations for certain uses associated with distribution and use of electric power, including data centers, electric or gas substations, backup generators, utility boxes, and battery energy storage systems. Uh and if there's no one in queue, I'll I'll recognize Councilmember Shafer. Yeah, I'm just going to make two quick comments, and that is number one, thank you for everybody about joining in on this work. I'm really excited about it. And I think some of it is is going to be um interesting and maybe has an overlap broader than data centers in in particularly backup generators. I know sometimes these generators have been plunked down next to apartment buildings or by hotels. Oh, you're right. Something's wrong with the mics. Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Okay. Um, I think there's going to be some interesting overlap to other areas that have been causes of concern in our wards around some of these topics like generators that we're going to get cleared up and I think it's going to be really kind of excited to to um, have some structure around. It's going to have some benefit I think not just for data centers, but for some other um, practical applications for our residents. Thanks. Okay. Uh, seeing no one else left in queue, that notice is hereby given and no further action is required at this time. I'm going to recommend we take a recess so folks can grab food. How brief would we like that recess to be? Or long? Half hour. Half hour. Let's return at 1:00. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Communications, we're ready to begin. The time is now 1:10, and we are returning from recess, and I will ask the clerk to call the roll to verify the presence of a quorum. Council member Rainville. Present. Vetaw. Present. Palmisano. Present. Chavez. >> Present. Warren. Present. Sheehan. Present. Wansley. Present. Chughtai. Present. Whiting. Present. Chaudry. Present. Stevenson. Present. Vice President Osman is absent. President Payne. Present. There are 12 members present. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. The next order of business is the presentation of reports from our standing committees. Those are taken in alphabetical order beginning with the report of the Business Housing and Zoning Committee given by that committee's vice chair, Council member Chaudry. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you, President Payne. The Business Housing Zoning Committee will be bringing 13 items forward. Item one approves a liquor license for Cafe Harmony. Item two approves an expansion of premises for Indeed Brewing Company. Item number Thank you, Council member Warren. Item number three approves an interim use permit for 222 Blaisdell Avenue. Item number four approves the 2026 HUD action plan. Item number five approves five liquor licenses. Item number six approves 10 liquor license renewals. Item number seven approves a gambling license. Item number eight, approves a street renaming changing Caesar Chavez Avenue to Fourth [clears throat] Avenue North. Item number nine, authorizes a contract for public art. Item number 10, approves a budget and operations for the MacPhail Center for music. Item number 11, authorizes a contract for tenant resources. Item number 12, is a gift acceptance from the Mississippi Watershed Organization. And lastly, item number 13 approves a rezoning for 1914 Washington Avenue. With that, I will move all items forward for approval. Council member Childrey has moved the committee report. Is there any discussion? I'll recognize Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President. I am abstaining from item number nine, the street name change for Caesar Chavez Avenue to Fourth Avenue North between East Lindale Avenue North and Border Avenue North. Um, can I speak to this item? Uh, why don't we just we'll take that separate and we'll take up the rest of the items. Is there any discussion on the remainder of the agenda? Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Rainville. I. Vita. I. Palmisano. I. Chavez. >> I. Warren. I. Sheehan. I. Wamsley. I. Chughtai. I. Weiner. I. >> [snorts] >> Childrey. I. Stevenson. I. President Payne. I. There are 12 eyes. The those items carried. Next we will take up item number nine and I'll call on Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President. Um today's item to restore this portion of Cesar Chavez Avenue back to Fourth Avenue North comes to a moment when communities across the country are re-assessing how public spaces and infrastructure honor historical figures. Um in light of the newly reported um sexual abuse allegations involving Cesar Chavez, um cities and states nationwide have been reviewing, renaming, and re- reconsideration of streets and holidays and um public, you know, um commemorations connected to Cesar Chavez following recent investigative reporting and public statements from later labor leaders and advocates. And I just want to highlight we don't want to um abstract his contributions to labor and to the labor industry and those things because it was very pivotal and very instrumental. However, in lieu of this new information that we have learned, it is important that we stand with our our neighbors and community members who have been harmed in these instances because um we know how important it is for victims to have their voices heard and to be acknowledged when things like this go on and so many times within um black and brown communities that has been abstracted and our voice are abstracted in very in various situations like that. So, for Ward 5, this action is about local clarity and continuing to restore the alignment with our existing street grid for residents, business, and navigation, and emergency response. I appreciate the work of public works, CPED, and the planning commission in helping move this through the public process, and I believe this street renaming reflects both responsible governance and responsiveness to our community concerns. So, I thank you so much for all of your support in this. Councilmember Chavez. Thank you, Council President Payne. I just want to thank Councilmember Warren for bringing this forward. She put her name on this application, which is really important to our community, and just want to clarify for the public that because she put her name on this, she can't vote for it, which is why she is abstaining. So, it doesn't mean she doesn't support this, but really important to our community and neighbors, and really thankful for her work. I'll note we've been joined by Vice President Osman, and without objection, Mr. Clerk, if you could record his vote for the um uh consent, and then we will take up the roll call on item number nine. Councilmember Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. >> [snorts] >> Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. >> Aye. Warren. Abstention. Sheaf. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Wedding. Aye. Chaudry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 12 ayes and one abstention. That item carries, and that completes the Biz report. The next report is from our Climate and Infrastructure Committee, which will be presented by that committee's chair, Councilmember Wansley. Actually, I'm going to ask Vice Chair Soren Stevenson to give the reports and see chair of that meeting. Council member Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. President. The C and I committee has 17 items to bring forward. Approving the RBC Gateway food truck block event permit. Uh two, approving the Downtown Wednesdays block event permit. Three, approving the annual saloon pride block party event permit. Four, approving the Taste of Minnesota block event permit. Five, approving the Minnesota UFC soccer celebration commercial block event permit. Six, uh author authoring a joint powers agreement with Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board for the Lake Harriet Parkway and William Berry Parkway reconstruction. Seven, resolution authorizing a cooperative agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the Nicollet Avenue bridge replacement over I-94 project. Eight, accepting the low bid for Oliver Avenue South storm sewer improvements project. Nine, accepting the sole bid for heavy truck and equipment body work. 10, authorizing a contract with J.J. Keller and Associates Incorporated for the CDL training program for city employees. 11, authorizing a contract amendment with Minger Construction Companies Incorporated for the combined sewer outfalls improvement project. 12, authorizing a contract amendment with WSB LLC for 35th Avenue North flood mitigation project. 13, authorizing a grant application for Federal Railroad Administration for connecting Camden Railroad grade separation project and the commitment of local funds for the application. 14, approving Paul Woo for appointment for the Lyndale Lake Special Services District Advisory Board. Early signature requested by the mayor. Uh approving Jason Kramber for appointment to the Uptown Special Services District Advisory Board. Early signature by mayor requested. Resolutions related to the 2026 lead service line replacement project orders. Uh uh passage of resolution adopting the stormwater management program and 2025 annual report and authorizing Public Works to submit the annual report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I'll move approval of the full report. Council member Stevenson has moved approval of the committee's report. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Warren. Aye. Sheafe. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Waring. Aye. Chaudry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and that completes the report. Next we'll have the report from our Committee of the Whole given by that committee's vice chair, Council member Chughtai. Thank you, Mr. President. The Committee of the Whole will be bringing six items forward today. Item number one approves four audit committee appointments. Item number two approves Allison's Law policy resolution. Items three and four approve two gift acceptances for Mayor Frey for traveling. Item number five is the financing and site acquisition for the Community Safety Training and Wellness Center. This item was sent forward without recommendation as well. Lastly, item number six approves a grant application for youth gang prevention and intervention. With that, I will move items one and two and six for approval. Um, I'll move items three and four for approval and request a uh separate discussion and vote. And then I'll move item number five uh for to I'll move to delete item number five from the agenda and pull this for a separate discussion and vote and ask for a second on all of those motions. All right, you're going to have to help me again. Uh can you repeat uh those motions? Yes, absolutely. Item one, two, and six um I'll move for approval. Okay. Item three and four are moved for approval and I'll request a separate vote and discussion on that. Um and then item number five for I'll move to delete from the agenda and pull for separate discussion and vote. Got it. Um on items one, two, and six, is there any discussion? Uh Council member Chavez, are you in queue for those items? >> Yes. Uh go ahead. Thanks, Council President Payne. Just want to thank my colleagues for unanimously moving forward the support for Allison's Law at Committee of the Whole and hopeful that with the support of everybody today, this becomes a priority for the state legislature next session. Thanks. Council member Schaefer. Yes, I just had a question um about our pulling of the various items. Can you please describe to me what deleting from the agenda means, but also voting and discussing? I don't know what that combination of things does. >> that item up separately and then we'll take that motion on at that time. On items one, two, and six, any discussion? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. On items 1, 2, and 6 in the Committee of the Whole report, Councilmember Rainville. >> Aye. Leitao. Aye. Hamasaki. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Warren. Aye. Schafer. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Walden. Aye. Chowdhury. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. >> Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries, and those items are approved. Next, we have items Do you want to take 3 and 4 together? Yes. >> We will take up items 3 and 4 at the same time, and I'll recognize Councilmember Chughtai. Uh thank you, Mr. President. Uh I just pulled these for a separate vote, as both of these gift acceptances are late, um and have the the gift has already been used at this point. Um I It is our We have adopted policy here at the city that lays out exactly how um gifts are to be solicited, how the the formal process through which they are accepted, um and I think it's very important that we are adhering to our adopted policy. I've brought this up in the past. I've uh made clear in the past that any gift acceptances that come before the body for approval that are um after the date of the of the gift, um I will be voting against. So, wanted to um remind uh colleagues of that um commitment, and and that's why I pulled the item for for separate vote. Councilmember Wansley. Thank you, President Payne. I also will be voting no on items 3 and 4. Um we do have a pretty clear policy um that articulates um how we're supposed to go about with gift acceptances and has the recommendation that they come before the gift has been executed, which has not happened in this case. Um, and I know when I was the chair of the Administration Enterprise Oversight Committee for 2 years, we constantly honed this in and trying to set a standard for departments to do this and we've seen some progress. So, to give exemption to the administration, I don't see the need for that. Um, the administration has tons of staff at their discretion, um, to be able to get these gift acceptances in on time and also in accordance with our policy. So, um, I too will be not supporting this item. Council member Palmisano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, that is true and I applaud the efforts of this whole body to try and get these things in before the date of travel. I don't know the situation with this. I do think these things come up for some of the highest profile people in our administration. In this case with the mayor, um, but ultimately I'm just trying to make the point that right now denying this request will ultimately cost the taxpayers something that would otherwise be free. So, that's why I will be supporting it today. Though I do think it would be worth, um, that I appreciate you pointing this out. I appreciate that everybody should be trying to adhere better and get the discipline of getting these things in. We regularly deal with walk-on items for travel for ourselves as a body. Thank you. Council member Chavez. Uh, thank you, Council President Payne. Uh, based on our council procedures, this is not allowed and I think this is something that we need to better address in the future. I'm going through [snorts] our entire agenda, there's a variety of different, uh, gift acceptances that we are going to be accepting today and those have followed the current, uh, procedures set forth by the City council. These two have not. In the past, I have allowed some of these to happen, but I was very clear uh when Councilmember Chuck Thai once said that she was no longer going to support these, I said, "Okay, we need to figure this out." The city's administration needs to make sure that these do not come anymore in this fashion because we have council rules that we have to follow. And I hope that this is just the last time we do this uh because it is, you know, the rest of our departments have followed the actual process set forth by our rules for other gift donations in our agenda that we're voting for today. Councilmember Chaudry. Thanks, President Payne. I just wanted to offer maybe a little bit of context um when we had the discussion about this initially in agenda setting. Um so the it the the staff person that showed up for the mayor's office made it clear that they were they were not aware that this was a practice that we had discussed um with administration-level departments and they're pretty apologetic about it and committed um in the future to ensure that this doesn't happen again coming from the mayor's office. Um I did also make a commitment the last time we had this happen, I think last term, that I wouldn't vote in support, but I hope that this uh will be a learning opportunity. Um yeah, I hope it I hope it's looked at as more of a learning opportunity than uh like a punitive measure. I mean, several of us have made this commitment, and so we have to follow through on that. Vice President Osman. I am just learning this. Uh is the administration or the mayor's office staff here to answer questions? I do not believe I see anyone from the mayor's office. I'd like to know what this visit was about and how does that benefit for the city of Minneapolis? I mean, I I could try to offer some clarity from the conversation that we had in agenda setting. So, essentially that there were um these events that the mayor was going to attend and um last minute they worked out a way to do a gift acceptance. I believe that he his office was originally considering him paying some of it out of pocket, but then last minute they were able to get the gift acceptance and then we shared with them and reiterated our policy. So, I think it was just uh from my view, an honest mistake. And I think we give him a give him a chance [clears throat] on question is not the travel part. My question is what is the event is about? Is it what is it? Just the Washington trip or what is the event is about? I'm sorry. What What is the event about? What What was this travel about? I understand that the mayor has been traveling and, you know, great. But how does that city benefits? Uh Is this the a Trump dinner? No, this is the 2026 Ideas Conference convening in Washington and then the gift acceptance for the fourth annual leadership summit for the Jewish Democratic Council of America. Okay. Well, thanks a lot. Council member Palmisano. Mr. Chair, I can't speak to the mayor's office, but I can clarify what I meant by otherwise the taxpayers would be paying for this if we vote no to accept this gift and that's that it would otherwise come out of the mayor's budget, his office's budget. The same way that when we travel to places, we would travel out of our own office budgets. So, that is what I mean when I say otherwise, this is an expenditure of the city taxpayers. Councilmember Chavez. Uh thank you, Council President Payne. There was an event I attended back in March and I was able to accept the gift acceptance, but I didn't do that because it would have been late. So, I wanted to be clear that I did not bring that gift acceptance here and said had to pay through our own ward budget because it was going to be late. So, I'm setting my I'm setting the mayor um to the same expectations that I would hold myself, which is why I didn't come before this body to give a gift acceptance even though it would have been easier to do so. Thanks. Councilmember Trucktai. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, um if a if a gift acceptance that is uh before the body for consideration as as Councilmember Palmisano highlighted, um and the the body does not uh accept the gift uh or does not vote to accept the gift, uh the department has to either pay for the the gift themselves or um or it comes out of pocket. Uh that's that's an option as well and I I think for for me, there is uh a standard um you know, in in the last term as as the as Councilmember Wansley highlighted, uh we had uh uh uh it had almost become a habit for gift acceptances to come late um in uh in violation of city policy. And and the most often, those gifts were coming from either the health department or the police department. And I think if um both of those departments are held to a standard of adhering to city policy and then uh their boss gets a waiver, it it doesn't set us up for success in in building a culture where everyone is held to the same standard. Um so, you know, as someone who has expressed some really harsh criticism of departments that bring in gift acceptances late, um I want to hold everyone to the same standard and not pick and choose who gets a pass versus um versus who doesn't. Thank you. I see um the mayor's staff and chambers if somebody has a question for the mayor's staff. Uh Councilmember Warren. Thank you, Council President um Payne. As a new councilmember, I don't even know where the form exists when you want to accept a gift and who you can accept a gift from, how much it can be for or against or whatever else the case is. So, being that, you know, and I'm newly elected in in November, no one sat down with me and said, "Hey, Councilmember Warren, if you want to accept a gift, here's what you got to do and the form you got to fill out and when it has to be submitted by so many days or what have you." I paid out of my ward budget for myself and one of my staff to attend um a conference in DC and I would wasn't even aware that I could have received a gift to do so. I just thought that this was the way that it goes. You either pay for it out your pocket or it comes out of your ward budget. So, if I'm new and there's been a change of arms of different people who are constantly cycling in and out of the city, I think that it's only fair because of the such grave learning curve that happened in the beginning of this year where maybe information may have been missed cuz it sure wasn't relayed to me. So, we were underneath a whole attack by a federal insurgent and people were not in the office explaining things as detailed as normal that things would be in normalcy. So, if this is a new staff person and this was an oversight on their their hands, you know, I suggest grace cuz someone still has not explained to me what the gift acceptance amount if it's $2, if it's $3, somebody give you a bus token, no one's told me what it is that's to be given to you if it's over a certain amount that you need an acceptance letter and where the form is to fill out to bring it before the council for whatever. So, I just say grant a little grace in this situation. This person was very apologetic. They, you know, stated that it was not intentional. Um, from what was explained, you know, that they came and said, "Hey, this was not our intent." You know, people are human. Let's take human error, you know, in this grace of this situation. It's not like it is happened repetitively before and before and before after you guys said it last year. We did just change arms. There has been a lot of high-stress things going on around here. So, I just say we grant a small amount of grace to this situation. That's it. Uh, Vice President Osman, did you want to ask a question of staff? >> My question was, what what was the event about? I'm not familiar with this organizations. And how would that benefit the city of Minneapolis? And if you could just introduce yourself. I'll just move this way down. Um, thank you, uh, Council Vice President, through the chair, Council President. My name is Jen Schmidt. I am the Director of Operations for Mayor Frey. I'm the one who submitted this, um, these two, uh, requests for gift acceptance. Um, the first one was for the Jewish Democratic, um, CA, I don't Council Association. I don't remember the full name. Um, where he was speaking about Operation Metro Surge, um, and other, um, and some of the actions that were done on that behalf. We did not decide about his travel, as you can imagine, his travel is very, um, fluid, um, or his schedule is very fluid, and so we didn't decide on this until after the date of submission. So, that's the main reason. And yes, this is not the practice that we want to have. Absolutely not. But, in this case it was necessary. And the CAP Ideas was the Center for American Progress conference, same subject. He was speaking about Operation Metro Search. Um I appreciate you explain to me um Yes, Mayor has been spokesperson for the city, especially what we went through. And Well, that's my question. Thanks. Seeing no one else left in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll and remind everyone that gift acceptance is required two-thirds vote. And the motion's on two, three, four, I'm sorry. Council Member Rainville. Aye. Vito. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. No. Warren. Aye. Schafer. Aye. Wansley. Nay. Chughtai. Nay. Whiting. Aye. Chaudry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Austin. No. President Payne. Aye. There are nine ayes and four nays. That item carries. Next, we will take up item number five. Uh and I will return to a question that Council Member Schafer had. Uh this was forwarded without recommendation and uh we do need to dispose of this item. This item also requires a two-thirds vote. Uh and uh Council Member Chughtai made a motion to delete this item from the agenda, which would dispose of that item. It wouldn't put it in limbo. Um and I want to just double-check and make sure is there a second for that motion? Second. Okay. So, the motion before us would be to delete this item from the agenda, which would dispose of the item and it wouldn't forward it [clears throat] uh for consideration to the mayor. This would help us prevent ambiguity of unfinished business. Uh Council member Witing. Thank you, President Payne. And just for clarification, you're trying to get an understanding. Does this the deletion from the number five from the agenda, that doesn't Does that require 2/3? Uh that would be a simple majority. >> That's all. Thank you. Council member Palmisano. Mr. Chair, I'll be speaking uh against this motion. It would be a mistake to pass up this opportunity. Police reform is a universal goal of this body. I'm not speaking for you all when I say that, and this is our chance to pursue this goal together and in a committed and meaningful way. This project is a part of that reform. For 6 years now, since the murder of George Floyd, Minneapolis has debated what public safety could and should be. And I've been here on this body for all of those discussions. The public has told us clearly they want reform. And we promised them that. They told us they want safer response in moments of crisis. They said they want better crisis response. They want trauma-informed response. They want interagency coordination. They want de-escalation training, and they want responder wellness. This proposal is about building the infrastructure we need for that promised reform and structural change. This is how we get there. It's about first responders training together and not in separate silos. It's about improving our response to critical events and emergencies. It's about strengthening constitutional policing standards. Excuse me. Let her finish. There's not a public speaking in this setting. about supporting behavioral crisis response. It's about helping emergency personnel make better decisions under pressure. And just as important as a safe and just response is supporting and caring for the mental health of the people we ask to respond to people on the worst days of their lives. Not only do we want that for them, we owe them that. They see and respond to horrors that none of us can imagine. Reform matters and I think we all agree on that. The real question is whether we're willing to invest in making reform real. If we want safer and more accountable public safety and we want that delivered in Minneapolis, then we must be willing to build the ecosystem that we need and this is part of that. Council member Warsame. Thank you, uh, President Payne. Before I decide whether or not to support this motion, I do want to get clarity from the clerks because we've had a back and forth with this item as opposed to just taking a vote to either approve or deny it by voting it down. Um, before we had a measure to have it be returned to staff with the assumption that it would not come back and it's back before us. So, I just want to get clarity on a difference between voting to delete and a vote to just do a down vote Um, if both paths allow for it to be brought back in front of this body in some different iteration and to just have clarification on that. Mr. Clerk. Sure. Mr. President, Council member Wanzala's question, the the last time this body dealt with a you know, similar version of this item, they referred it to staff. I think generally with a motion to refer to staff, the assumption is that staff is going to come back with some changes to the proposal. Um, a motion to delete from the agenda is a a a bit firmer of a of a of of a of a of a decision in terms of saying we're we're done with this item for now. I don't think it necessarily precludes it from coming back because the council has not affirmatively said yes or no, they just said we're we're done with this item for now. Um Uh simultaneously, you you mentioned that the council could, you know, vote to affirmatively approve or deny this item. I'll I'll remind council that a if if someone had if someone moves to approve the item and it fails, that is not a dispositive dispositive action, that is simply a failure to approve, right? So, the council would need to make a motion to actually deny to affirmatively kill the item if you if you will. And just clarification, if yes, thank you for that. And then a vote to deny, basically what you're mentioning is also the the aspect of disposal which a deletion from the agenda could serve as that purpose. I I I think I think they're slightly different. A motion to delete would say, you know, like I said, we're we're just done with this for now, but we're not unwilling to consider it potentially coming back. A motion to deny would be an action that's going to go to the mayor and says we are denying this. The mayor could then approve or veto your act in that capacity and once the the body had acted on on that veto, the the matter would be done and disposed of it and could not come back in the same form. Okay, so a motion to delete essentially would not allow this item to be sent forward to the mayor as well and then sub- subjected to mayoral action. I I think that's correct. A motion to delete from the agenda is simply removing it from your agenda. It would not go to the mayor. Mhm, okay. And that's for now. Correct. Okay, thank you. As a general advisory I announce that council's rules do not permit comments from the public except during a properly noticed hearing or comment period. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct the business of the city. It is not a forum for public testimony or comments. Under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, meetings of the City Council and its committees are open to the public for the purpose of observation only. Consistent with council rules, individuals who purposely disrupt or disturb these proceedings are there are proceedings and interfere with the body's ability to conduct the business of the city will be asked to leave. Those who refuse to follow those those instructions may be removed from the chamber. Just want to make sure that we're all staying respectful and I will recognize Council Member Whiting. Uh thank you uh President Payne. You know, I will I will pass for now, President Payne. Council Member Stevenson. I'm also going to pass. Uh I see Council Member Warren in the pri- raising a question. Yes, Council President Payne. Thank you so much for reading that. Can we um unanimously decide to make that a point of ruling that that is read at the beginning of every council meeting and after each recess so that that happens and we have proper decorum here every time? Just think it would be fair. Because it it always happens to be read after an offense. So, I think if we just make it a staple in the beginning of every council meeting, then we can say that we said it and it's at the introduction when you call the meeting to order or when any meeting is called to order that is not given space for public comment and even when it is given space to public comment, if that is read so that there is a level of decorum that is a reflection of this body and it's as also is reflected with our constituents. This is part of our formal rules. Uh that's consistent throughout. I think we can have a broader discussion on how we want to approach that, but I think we should continue on our discussion. Um Council Member I'm sorry, Vice President Osman. Oh, thank you. Just uh You didn't answer my question, Council President. I'm sorry, Vice President Osman. Uh I think we should have a broader conversation about how we want to address the rules that are adopted by the body. And I think that now is not the time for that conversation. And we should stick to the item that's before us. >> But that's the that's the rule. The rules are formally adopted by this body. It currently is the rule and I'm happy to speak offline, but we should continue the discussion on this item. Vice President Osman. Thank you so much. I made it my comment yesterday, but I do want to add a little bit of of uh why why I'm voting no on this project at this time. I support better training and wellness for public safety workers. I think we talked about taking care of people that serve our uh residents every day do deserve a strong tools and modern buildings and training and mental health support and all those things. My concern is not just the mission. It's the timing and the planning and the long-term cost of our city. Uh we are facing um real budget pressure pressure and we know that big projects uh um cost a lot of money and you know, the idea of just purchasing the building and waiting for magic things to happen is not really uh well planned. Right now, the state capital shows little interest and we had uh the delegates uh city Minneapolis come out and say they're not going to be supporting at this time. And I I do also believe that uh a project for this magnitude should be a regional um partnership should include. And uh we got to include those at the beginning of the purchasing the building. Uh supporting uh public safety uh means protecting also taxpayers. Uh I think we can still um improve uh training and wellness without committing a huge uh project. There are other options we can do at the time of um outsourcing uh those um needed services in our city. Uh residents expect us to be responsible. And uh what I'm getting right now uh is that let's buy the building and let's just see what happens and that is not a smart move at all. And my focus is to keep Minneapolis moving forward and on public safety while protecting our tax uh financial stability and making um a calculated decision. So, I will be supporting no on this item. Um So, thank you so much, Council Vice President Council President. Council Member Scheifer. Yes, this is a this is a question for the um city attorney. Can you tell me how a motion to delete on a land purchase um functions in practicality. Is that a denial or is that leave it in limbo? Mr. Attorney. Sure. Council President, uh Council member Shafer, in order to go forward with the land purchase, the city would need approval. So, the the motion to delete is not approval. The city will not be able to move forward with the land purchase. I mean, there are certain ways that it could get back on the agenda and then it would depend on the timing of something potentially getting back on the agenda and, you know, the the negotiations with the property owner, which I think Finance and Property Services would be better able to speak to. Uh thank you. Is there anything else, Director O'Brien, you would like to add to that? No. Okay. I had one other question for the city attorney, and that was um you know, we've heard a lot of discussion back and forth. Yes, we could say no to this training center. No, we can't say no to this training center and because of prior previous approvals. So, could you give a like kind of a little bit of historical context for those of us that may have not walked through that whole process step-by-step about um who was hired to I mean, not who, but you know, if the consultant that was hired, the amount money we've spent already on this process. Council President, Council member Shafer, I think what what you're asking is sort of how how this fits into the settlement agreement and what's happened so far. Uh so, the MDHR settlement agreement does not expressly require a training facility. Um what is required by the uh resources support portion of that settlement agreement is for the city to conduct a comprehensive facilities assessment and then make a plan and develop a timeline to implement the assessment. So, the city had a competitive RFP process and hired a vendor to conduct the facilities assessment and there was actually I think separate assessments look at use and condition of facilities. Um the vendor recommended uh new training facility. I think the strongest recommendation for that was in the use assessment. Um the city then asked Alif uh which who is a settlement agreement monitor to approve the training facility as part of the city's obligation to implement an equipment technologies and facilities response plan in the settlement agreement. Alif approved that plan and will be evaluating the city on its compliance with the plan. If the city chooses not to build this new training facility, um then it will need to find a new way to address the findings in the facilities assessments and get approval from Alif uh for that change to the equipment technology and facilities response plan. Okay. Thank you, that's helpful. So, we have alrea- already expended a significant amount of time, energy, and staff time on this process. We went through an a facilities assessment. The experts [clears throat] decided that a new facility was the best route forward after assessing all of our current facilities. That assessment was approved by Alif uh. Now, and we are under an obligation to fulfill our approved Alif uh um contract or maybe it's not a contract, but a agreement. So, if we go against this current direction and you're saying we could, um we would have to start this process again and we would be out of approval with Alif number one and then we'd have to go back and figure out how we would become uh you know, check that box of you know, upgraded facilities um with Alif in a different manner with spending more money. Is that Am I summarizing that correctly? Uh Council President, Council Member Shafer, I mean, I think I don't I don't know if I'd say we'd be out of compliance. Essentially, though, the the city, because Elefa has approved this, the city would need to come up with something else and something else that would gain Elefa's approval. And I can't really speak to what that might be because that's not really my area of expertise. >> Okay. Thank you. And I And I will uh hearken back to last Tuesday when Council Member Whiting, with your exposure to this topic, talked about that it would You You did not suggest that we as a body would move away from um Elefa's recommendations that we currently have on the books because of the amount of money that we're spending on Elefa on an annual basis. Um that is really a significant cost that we are uh incurring as a city. So, we can talk about you know, whatever we want to call the safety inter- facilities committee. I mean, this community facility, not community. Safety first responders community. I mean, sorry. It's been a long meeting. Facility. Facility. Um We can really We can talk about budget all we want, and that 38 million is a big number. But, there are other costs, and yes, on Tuesday I really asked for those costs to be brought forward. And for my understanding, we did not hear anything back yet around what are we spending on decentralized training currently when we think about maybe extended Elefa contracts, and um that's maybe a separate bucket. But, um Director O'Brien, would you have any update around that at this point? I know that was a lot to ask just 2 days ago. Um but, if you would have any insights into that that you feel like are appropriate to this decision-making, I'd appreciate it. In 1 minute and 5 seconds. Okay. Council member Eric, um Council President Payne, um Council member Schaefer, uh we are working hard to compile the long list of items that you had uh shared. It's not just property services expenses that can be reflected. Um specific training dollars is what you asked for and um I think that that would be best answered by the Office of Community Safety. And so I know that there's a collection of people who are working very hard to have that prepared for you. Okay. Um I Yeah. Thank you so much. And then I have a question for the clerk. Is there any um motion that we can make to delay this information until we get this data around what we're spending on training elsewhere and what that cost comparison is to where we're headed? I mean, this is an important decision and I No, I'm sorry. Uh Mr. Clerk, you have 3 seconds. Uh if if Mr. Clerk, I would ask then the same question. I Looks like I'm next. Council member Whiting. Mhm. Same question? Uh President Payne to Council member Whiting's question, I you know, I would defer to staff here, but I I mean, uh it certainly would be possible to postpone the item if, you know, I think staff has to answer the questions about the logistical uh implications of that, but it certainly could be moved to postpone it. I don't know that a motion to postpone would be in order right now because it's already been moved to delete from the agenda. So it it's it would not be in in order right now until the body has dealt with the motion to delete from the agenda. But if that fails, uh that motion would certainly be in order, but staff would then have to answer questions about the logistical implications of that. >> Thank you. Council member Whiting. Thank you. Uh thank you, President Payne. Uh I'm going to speak just I think to the to the basic underlying resolution here. Specifically, what we were hoping to do. It looks like there is a motion in front of us that will delete this and so the motion that we were going to bring it sounds like it would not be germane to add it in here. But we were hoping to in in collaboration with with colleagues and and community members, we've heard loud and clear right that this this resolution would pair the purchase of the proposed community safety training and wellness site to the development of a working group that includes council members and community members and and folks that are have deeply interested in this work. This group would advise on space needs for the facility and design and produce a final report report that would inform site development. The proposed facility site purchase before us today is the first step in a long process which will ultimately culminate in a major multi-departmental public safety investment. I have heard from my colleagues, the public, the desire to make this process of developing the center more transparent. What this resolution would have done was brought elected officials, community members directly into the planning process by creating a work group where we'd help ensure the process of developing the center is transparent and accountable as possible. That this is that's not going to come up before us today. I'm so sorry to the clerk's office and others that put a lot of work into it. Make sure we got here. I appreciate it nonetheless. But do want to walk through a little bit of about questions, particularly as it relates to assessments and requirements. I've been hearing a lot of of conversation around the settlement agreement doesn't necessarily require it. These are recommendations. And so I will I will read verbatim as I like to do particularly from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights settlement agreement. And so on page 79, paragraph Oh shoot, did I forget the paragraph here? I thought it was on page 79. Give me 1 second here. Well, maybe I'm not going to read it verbatim. Um I won't read it verbatim because I don't have it pulled up >> [laughter] >> on my computer. But more or less, what the city is required to do within 120 days after the effective date of the agreement is the city is required to do an assessment and that was the walled facilities assessment. What that assessment does because the settlement agreement was drafted by lawyers, had council member input, cops, community members, etc. During this drafting stage, you do not have structural engineers and other people in this process. And so what consent decree cities, what settlement agreement cities do across the country is they consult out to those people that are able to do those assessments. That right, if the settlement agreement said that there are problems with a broken water pipe on page three. Right, the settlement agreement does not do that. We don't have the technical expertise to do that. You farm that out to folks that have that expertise. And so what the settlement agreement does is say that the assessment must be done to identify problems so then those identified problems become the requirements of what is needed to be fulfilled in the settlement agreement. In addition, right, if the settlement agreement was to address all of those problems, the settlement agreement would be 8,000 pages long. Um what we say in these assessments is that these things are then the requirements that the city has to move forward as our city attorney just spoke to. And so as somebody that is fully committed to every single recommendation that then becomes a requirement in the settlement agreement and consent decree, these are one of those pieces. Right, we have I believe, four to five other assessments on vastly different things. The moment we start to choose and decide which recommendations become reform is when I believe and what we have seen across consent decree cities, the moment these things happen is when reform starts to fall apart. And I appreciate there are valid concerns about this facility. There There There absolutely are. And I've And I've been really excited to work with colleagues to figure out something that would identify and rectify those concerns. >> You are out of time. But I'm out of time. Thank you, Mr. President. Council Member Warsame. Thank you, President Payne. Another I'm just reiterating my continued opposition to this project and I will name I I'm First, clerks, can you remind me how many votes is needed for the motion to delete? Um Mr. President, Council Member Warsame, uh a simple majority vote is needed to delete the item from the agenda. Okay. I will name the concern of this coming back before the body after we've done back and forth and played tick for tat with this does make me a little bit nervous and I will name to my hesitancy on the deletion of I want Mayor Frey to have to take a firm position on this. Um he has not shared much about why he's pushing for this. Why is this such a a key priority when we should be looking at investments in social housing, public housing, when we also have other green infrastructures. We just actually did an honorary resolution tied to um George Floyd Square and there's massive things that needs to happen as part of the 38th um Street in Chicago capital project. Like I we could be pouring resources into that as opposed to this. And it's it's a little concerning of basically giving Frey out um to have to take a position on. Do you actually want to spend 40 million or more on a fortress with simulations and and wellness rooms and all these things that do not actually guarantee safer communities. It's a want, it's a wish list, it is not a need. And I want us then segue that into this commentary again of in or if you are against this project, that means you are against reform. There's nowhere in the Leifur report or anywhere that says any of that. You do not need a facility a wants of a facility in order to rid a police department that has decades of documented brutalization of black, brown, and indigenous residents. They were doing that with existing facilities. They are still doing that with a hundred millions of dollars already poured into their existing facilities and with additions of new ones. Um that is already happening. To make it seem as if this facility is going to be a determinant of whether or not you have cops that kill you or not is just preposterous and that is not true. And it will not take much for us to present a alternative plan to a Leifur, which someone noted the cost of a Leifur. A Leifur is something that's fixed in our settlement agreement. That's $1.5 million. That's not changing. What could change if there was a will of our city leadership in the Frey administration is to present something different. And from that, let's then talk about unlocking the 6 million to 38 million that we know it's likely going to be above more than that to go towards some of these other key priorities. That is the conversation that I want to have. I We know there is a massive need for housing and we know there is a lot of residents who are about to face eviction because we have not put eviction protections in place because of Operation Metro Surge. We could be using this as an opportunity to also provide for that need of our residents. And there is nothing in the Leifur report, nothing in our settlement agreement that precludes us from having that conversation and presenting something much more modest. Way more modest than what we're talking about doing right now with this project. So, I wanted to flag again this weaponization of the settlement agreement to constantly use as a tool to rubber stamp rubber stamp every request by MPD. What we can learn from other cities is we don't need to bankrupt ourselves by fulfilling the needs of consent decree for our police department. We can actually do that. And we could actually meet the recommendations of that consent decree and not in 20 years and then walk away to walk away with a billion-dollar price tag. I think that when we're talking about being fiscally conservative, I think residents would love to see that. They would love to see a police department that doesn't constantly put them in the red when it comes to the finances or puts the city in a negative red when it comes to the financial well-being of our city. That is what we have as an opportunity for us and for me and my little lefty Democratic socialist stuff to be like, let's do fiscal conservativism. That says a lot. To be like, let's take a moment and be like, let's not do this. This is me putting on my inner Republican hat. This is the time. This is the time. If there was ever one. Council Member Warren. Thank you, Council President Payne. Um So, um we're back here again. We're talking about purchasing the land for this facility. And as the Ward 5 North Minneapolis representative, everyone is whooping and hollering about they don't want to build a cop city. However, they allege to be ultra concerned about what happens to black and brown bodies, okay? Black and brown bodies that make up a majority of the population in North Minneapolis, where both of the training facilities currently exist, split between two separate buildings, one in Ward 5, one in Ward 4. If we want to talk about our landscaping and the things that are happening in North Minneapolis and the fact that North Minneapolis needs the space to expand and do the things that we need to do to support our residents and our young people, then guess what? We would make a conscious decision to go ahead and remove the training facility out of North Minneapolis. Out of North Minneapolis, away from the individuals who you allege that you are so deeply invested in protecting against harms. That's where you would remove it from, expeditiously. Quick, fast, and in a hurry. But instead, there is a constant pause. There is a stop. There is a pulse. And why is that? Because you only benefit when a black body or a brown body is no longer existing, then you capitalize off the pain of my community. But you still continuate continue to perpetuate those same societal harms allegedly on my community, but no one sees a sense of urgency or a big issue. They don't think that this is a violation of the consent decree. They don't think that police reform has anything to do with community reform. They don't think that real real healing and and and reformation has to do with the removal of something of this within its jurisdiction. What am I missing here, ladies and gentlemen? I don't even understand why we're constantly having this discussion over and over and over and over again. When you have black and brown bodies that are standing up and saying, "Hey, get it up out of my backyard." Get it out of my backyard. That's what we're asking for. So, I don't care where it's built, spend the money, the 6 million, acquire the land, but get it out of my backyard because that's what we've been asking for repeatedly. We've been asking for it. North Minneapolis neighbors and residents have been asking for it. I just got here. I ain't been here that long, but I was a constituent before I sat in this seat, and I know that it's been there. We've been asking for it to be removed. Specifically. So, we found a space, we got the land, acquire the land, and let's build the plan. But work on getting it out of our school buildings and out of our community centers in North Minneapolis so that our children and our families have the space that they need to grow. That's all I'm asking for. The end. Council member Chavez. Uh thank you, Council President Payne. Um I won't be supporting this community safety training and wellness center. Um although I did see the resolution that Council member Whiting is bringing forward to establish a work group. I think obviously since we're voting on this item, this won't be relevant today, but I would suggest that maybe if there was going to be an establishment of a work group, it would be to figure out how we get rid of these sites from North Minneapolis as being told by my colleagues, and I would suggest that as a pathway forward cuz I do not support this center. I think it would cost more than $40 million to to build, but I do hear the concerns of not wanting it in North side, and I believe that is something we should be focusing on as soon as possible. Thank you. Council member Stevenson. Thank you. Um we before I got here certainly and and since I've been here uh this body has spent nearly a hundred million dollars on precinct upgrades. Um massive overspending by MPD year-over-year. Uh just because we've spent a lot of money already doesn't mean we should continue down the same path. The sunk sunk cost fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason. It is not logical to continue with something because you've already spent money on it. If the idea is not a good idea, and this idea is not a good idea, uh we should not move forward with it. We do not need to waste money in the future because we uh misspent money in the past. Uh there are other ways that we can meet what we need to do with the settlement agreement. We've gone over this. We can find a new way, and we should do that. One that is respectful to taxpayer dollars, and one that is uh respectful to the community. And I just want to briefly talk about the community. In my community, where George Floyd was murdered, that set off this whole thing, we would like to see investment in that community. The 38th Drive 38th Street Thrive Plan, which was uh authored by many, many folks, including my predecessor, uh is about investing in the historic black community, in vending in ending black displacement, and revitalizing the 38th Street Corridor, which is a black community corridor. Let's invest in the black community, and let's invest in the community that suffered the harm of George Floyd being murdered there. We do not need to spend all of our money, every single dollar we have, towards chasing a training center that is not a good idea. This is not the best idea we have. It came up in 120 days. We can spend the next 120 days finding a better idea to of how to meet the needs of of our training facilities. And we should do that right away. We need to drop this proposal. It's simply not the priority right now. We need to be investing in our communities, in housing, in business incubation, in other economic development, particularly along the 38th Street Corridor. I mean, come to my community and see places that are just sitting vacant, sitting lying in waiting for us to invest in them. We cannot keep spending money frivolously and then wondering why black displacement is happening in my community. We need to invest in the 38th Street Thrive Plan. This is something that is years and years in the work, and it's time to actually do it. Council member Chughtai. Thank you, Mr. President. Um I believe in investing in the wellness of our city employees, the people who deliver services to the residents of our city every day. I believe in doing making those types of investments in the wellness of all of our employees. It's really hard for me to hear about how we must spend nearly $40 million dollars on a building because we believe somehow that is wellness. Well, at the same time we're facing a number of different crises. Wellness is being able to go to the doctor when you need to. Wellness is being able to access mental health care and services when you need to. And our city employees are facing increases to their health insurance premiums in the upcoming year. That is the wellness problem that we need to address, not a not the need for not a new building. In the wake of Operation Metro [snorts] Surge, we know that uh hunger in our city is at an all-time high. That's a real threat to the wellness of our community, our broader community. That's something we should address. And a building isn't going to contribute to wellness of our broader community. A few weeks ago we just listened to the mayor give uh his state-of-the-city address where he spoke repeatedly about the need to get back to basics, on the need to scale back programs and spending that may accomplish great things, that may be aspirational, that we may love, but we cannot afford to implement. I don't see how a new $40 million building that will have indefinite maintenance and security costs that we don't even know the scale of yet is getting back to basics. I don't see how we can justify this kind of new expense while simultaneously saying we need to prepare for a tight budget year where we will have to make hard decisions that will include making cuts. To me it's the height of hypocrisy to pursue a new pet project building before MPD has met a vast majority of items in the consent decree, before they have created a new and better training program in compliance with the consent decree, while the rest of our departments and employees are bracing for increased costs and scaling back of programs. That's why I cannot support this. I'll uh I'll explain the rationale behind the motion I made to delete this item from the agenda. A motion to delete something from the agenda is a dispositive motion and effectively kills an item. This is an item that requires nine votes for approval and I understand that uh you know, the the motion to delete is confusing, there's a desire from council members to take uh an action that um that is uh is able to be presented to the mayor in the form of an official act. Um and close out this this uh legislative process. So, um hopefully without objection from colleagues, I will make uh I will withdraw this motion and make a motion instead to deny this item. And ask for a second. Second. That's been moved. Uh the motion to delete has been withdrawn uh and replaced with the motion to deny, and that's been seconded. Is there any further discussion as the queue gets reset? Councilmember Chehfer. Yes, um I'm going to need clarification on deny, but anyway, that can come later. That's just a regular vote, up or down. Correct. >> Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Um I would like to say one thing. And I just want to compliment uh Council Member Vita and Council Member Moore Warren for consistently going to bat around this issue for North Minneapolis and the SAC. And if I were to say anything more around this today, it would be that reason alone should be enough reason for us to purchase this land, form a work group, decide what we can do so we can get that out of North Minneapolis as soon as possible. Council Member Chavez, I appreciate your sentiment. But now is the time that we can do something about that for North Minneapolis. It's not a priority unless we move forward on this now. So I will I I I'm just The other thing I'd like to think about is um we have creativity around this site. As we know, somebody on the dais mentioned a regional opportunity. If we don't purchase this land, we don't have any more creative opportunities to think about a regional partner. There is 5 acres of land for sale at almost twice the price right next door. Would there be an opportunity for regional investment to share costs if we were to buy this land at this point in time? So I would just encourage my colleagues, do this for North Minneapolis, do this to honor the work of staff since 2018, and do this for flexibility and respect for the Elifa process to date, and for all of the first responders, uh of which my son is one. And so, I just want to say we need to do this now uh for our colleagues and for the community. Council member Warren. November 15th, 2015, Jamar Clark was killed less than a block away from the gun range on Plymouth Avenue in North Minneapolis. November 15th, 2015, Jamar Clark was murdered on Plymouth Avenue less than a block away from the gun range in North Minneapolis. And individuals on this body want to sit up and tell me about the disparities that exist within their community on the south side of Minneapolis, where black folks just was accepted at being at in here in the in the state of Minnesota. Was not a historically black or Jewish community. That's Northside. That's Ward 5. That's where I am. We've been there. The disparities have existed there. The same things that W. Gertrude Brown were talking about in 1925 are the same things that we're experiencing in North Minneapolis today. Talk about disinvestment. Talk about the things that are missing and that are constantly abstracted. All we're asking for is space. WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOUSING DISPARITIES? I got housing disparities in my ward, huge. Over 200 vacant units right now with the property that's practically sinking in the ground. All I'm asking for is space. That's it. Space. Give our community the space that it needs to thrive and grow. We are oversaturated with city-owned properties, nonprofit organizations that do not help our tax burden or assessments in North Minneapolis. Oversaturation. Fannie Lou Hamer tired of that. Come get your stuff. Give us the space that we need. Let's buy a land where we said we were going to purchase it at and ensure that our community has what it needs in order to be able to thrive. Don't sit up and talk about vacant buildings and loss of stores or storage or or or economic development and growth that's moving at a snail's pace. Dog on it, come come over to my side of town. We spent $38 million building a whole new third precinct after the first one was burnt down. Turned it into a democracy center. When everyone could have just went people are still going to go into the building now. We could have just used that same democracy center and turned it back into a third precinct and we'd have had the money in the budget right up front and center to build a new training facility for our safety officers and the public responders and the fire department and the animal control folks and everybody to be in a centralized location. Animal control, Ward 5. Off to the side, in the cut. Near Northern Meadows location. Guess that's good for the animals. They could just be right there. The utter disrespect. When do people just get tired of hearing ourselves say things that are redundant? It's tiring. Listening to it over and over again. We just have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. When you going to start listening different? Do something different. I dare you. Try it. Once. Because our community deserves better. We got to pull teeth, spin around in a circle, go to window five, do 80 jumping jacks to get somebody to understand that North Minneapolis is valuable. Constantly trying to rewrite the narrative to make sure that we're included when things like this is going on. Nobody Nobody seems to think that it's important. Or that it's meaningful for my community. Or that the children in my community do not deserve. Yeah, I'm constantly advocating for the same thing over and over and over again. Shouldn't be this difficult of a request. We found somewhere for it to go. The training facility is right next to, guess what? A cemetery. Ain't bothering nobody. That land parcel sits right in front of a cemetery. Ain't nothing right there. An old bus shelter. >> The flower shop, Bachman's, is around the corner on Lyndale. It would be out the way. Completely out of the way. So, let's move it out the way. That's all I'm asking. The end. I want to note that we've been joined by uh Mayor Frey, and I will recognize Well, uh Mayor, would you like to speak at all? I don't know if you have speaker management queued up. Thank you, Mr. President. No, I don't have speaker management queued up. I believe Council member Palmisano got in line for me, but I also have to be at a meeting in a few minutes. So, >> Council member Vetaw. Well, don't put me on the spot. Thank you, Mayor. >> [laughter] >> Go ahead, Mayor Frey. >> Council. Thank you, Council members. So, I wanted just to take an opportunity to to come by Council chambers and thank you also for having me to maybe make an effort to bring down the temperature a little bit. Um This is not an item that came in as a priority for me when I took office or even going into this term. Um >> [snorts] >> But, this is an item that was unanimously supported by this body multiple times. I'm going to say it again. Unanimously supported by this body in October of 2025, in February of 2026. And so, if we're looking for hypocrisy, look no further than chiding people for supporting something that we all once did. And so, I believe in consistency and or at the very least you can change your position but let's also acknowledge it when we do. It's okay to change our positions and I respect both that and your vote. You all have your vote. You can change your position if there are different priorities that come up. It's okay to change what's on the IGR agenda. It's okay to change what our priorities are. And this is not my priority or an issue that I support simply for the sake of building a building. It's also for the sake of compliance with consent decree and settlement agreement. Where we have provided a plan to meet both training and wellness for firefighters and police officers and this particular plan including the wellness center has been approved. If there are other ways of doing that by all means I am all ears to it. If there are other ways of doing it without spending more money I'm all ears to it. But the way I see it is that if the property isn't purchased and then we're going to purchase it later we're going to be spending more money on the thing we don't want to be spending money on. The price today will likely go up dramatically. We spend millions of dollars more and for those that are opposed to doing the thing even if you are opposed to doing it there is an open question which again is do we need to? I'm sure we can have a discussion about what in particular is in the facility. I'm sure there's an open discussion about what we need to be doing to make sure that we both spend efficiently but also do the important works of training and wellness and compliance. Something that I think every council member up here as well as myself agrees with. I'm open to those discussions. What I reject is again making this personalized when in fact this was a personal vote taken by every single person that took one. Unanimously. Multiple times. We can check the record. We can put it out there. Let's not make this personal cuz it's not. Let's make this about doing right by the city. Let's make this by about trying to figure out the best way which we can all disagree about about doing wellness and training in the city. And I would very much welcome a discussion about how to get that right with all of you. Council member Vitale. Thank you President Payne. I you know, I really did not want to talk about this again today. I was hoping we could have just voted and moved forward, but I I start to get upset when I hear um things like what wellness is. Wellness is about protecting the community. And so that has been my vision for this project this entire time. Community members have asked over and over again for this to not be in their front and backyards. Both of these facilities. And and I hear it. I hear people saying, "Hey, we want to work with the North side to make sure that they don't have to do this." But literally has never happened. It's just another talking point on the dais. No one has come and said, "Council member Vitale, we really people that are that have a complete different position than I do have not come to me and said, 'What does this look like for the North side? Hey, can we co-host a community meeting on the North side so I can understand how we can better serve you on the south side. How do we work together to make this happen? It's never happened. So, it's just talking. When people start saying, "I support the north side, but I really want to get the I really want this to happen so that the north side does not have to endure this, but I'm really not doing anything." And we all represent communities here, and I'm certain we all believe we represent the best of the best. What I hear being said constantly, when you know, it's when you need to talk about the north side, you will. You talk about the disenfranchisement in the north side. You talk about the police and and how the north side community is impacted, and you talk about all these things, but when the north side literally says what they want, you got two north side council members up here telling you what they want and what community is saying we want, then it's like, "Oh, okay. We we hear you, but we we really don't hear you." And I I have literally been begging my colleagues for that. This is three election cycles. This is like years of me asking to just help us, to just give us hope. This is multiple south side projects of voting against things that I thought should be a different way, but trying to be supportive of my colleagues. So, when my turn came, people would have the same grace and respect that I've had for them. I have not agreed with a lot of the projects that have happened on the south side, but I've certainly voted with my colleagues because I trust and believe that that is best for their community. And we are not getting the same respect in north Minneapolis, nor are we getting the same level of protection. No one's taken our wellness into consideration. Wellness is not just about I'm not talking about this from a wellness perspective of the police officers or the firefighters or the violence interrupters or whomever going to be in this building. I'm talking about wellness of the 66,000 residents who live in North Minneapolis, the children who live in North Minneapolis, the people who visit North Minneapolis, the people who drive past these buildings every day and ask for something different. We're not thinking about their wellness. We're not thinking about their wellness like we thought about the people who no longer wanted to walk into the Southside Third Precinct's wellness. That certainly was into consideration. And it's not about It's It's far beyond pitting sides against each other. It's really thinking about this from the perspective of people who care We should look at this as a governing body who cares about this entire city and doing things to move our entire city forward and not continuing to leave the Northside and then using that as another disparity because that's exactly what it is. We've been disenfranchised by these two buildings being in our neighborhoods. They're not even on like Broadway and Lowry. They're literally in the middle of our communities on a block. And no one is trying to help us change that on this body and we have an opportunity to. I don't I I really don't know what's going to happen here today, but I certainly hope that this does not become one of those things that we no longer care about at all. That this gets taken off the agenda and we're forgotten forever because I'm telling you as the Northside Council Member, that's exactly what it feels like is happening here today and it feels like my colleagues want that to happen. Strong language is being said about removing, getting rid of, taking it away. All of this is disgusting and terrible to hear and feel when I know this is not something we can just remove and say, "Okay, let them continue to deal with it." This is something we need to do something about. And if And if the action today is to you know, take it from out of our faces and act like the problem doesn't exist in North Minneapolis, that shame on us. Councilman Council member Whiting. And please keep your comments Please yeah, man. Audience, please keep comments down. Let's Yeah. Let's Let's take a beat here. Uh What Again, there's no public comment here. So, please keep comments to the minimum. Keep snap I'm I'm just warning to everyone in the audience, including the snapping. Um And [clears throat] I don't want to have to ask to remove anybody. But let's just continue on the discussion. I don't want to have to escalate our rules and have to remove anybody. Um I'll recognize Council member Whiting. Thank you, President Payne. And it looks like I do get to amend. It looks like thank you to to Council member Chughtai here. Um I've spoke to it a little bit. So, colleagues, I'm making a motion to amend item number five, uh the financing and acquisition for the Community Safety Training and Wellness Center, and adding the resolution in front of you, colleagues, as a sub item three underneath that. Um can I have a second on this motion? Second. Um Mr. President, I Sorry to interrupt. I I I believe the motion is to deny this item. So, I don't think Councilmember Widen's amendment would be appropriate at this time. I I'm not sure it makes sense to both deny the acquisition and approve the work group. Uh that's why we're including them together as a sub item number three underneath. And so, uh it would be taking all of them together as one. I I I I don't know if I'm misunderstanding, but I If we deny the acquisition of the property, wouldn't the work group >> five has two subsections, one, two, and then we are amending to add this resolution as sub item three underneath five. And so, they would be voted on together. And so, if this is approved, this would come along with it. If it is not moved forward, it would also not move forward because we wouldn't take it up afterwards. I guess I mean, we could take it up beforehand. >> would be it would be not denied as a package. Correct. >> is your intent. >> Yep. No, it would be denied if the Oh. All of it denied. Um Mr. Clerk, so that I think the author's intent is that if the whole package gets denied, this is a component of that package that gets denied. Correct. I If If If that makes sense to the body, I'm I'm not sure it quite makes sense to me. Um the the the the if if the body at some point decides to approve the acquisition, then I believe the work group makes sense, but I it it I I'm not understanding why the why the work group would make sense to go along with the denial of the acquisition. And I would see an opportunity to actually do the work group in a different capacity if this gets tonight. Just bring that forward separately. Yeah, I think for the sake of clarity cuz it seems like there's quite a bit of confusion here. Um cuz your work group is specifically tied to this piece of property. >> Correct. Yeah, and that's why we I think there's an opportunity to continue with your concept of the work group, but maybe not specifically tied to this property. Sure. Mr. President, let me maybe explain one more element of my confusion. So, if if the body were to decide to deny the acquisition, that goes to the mayor, right? The mayor can veto that and it comes back to the body. Um just as as we've been discussing with the appointment of Commissioner Barnett, the act if the council chooses to sustain the mayor's veto, that doesn't mean the acquisition is granted. It would mean that the body then has another opportunity to approve the acquisition. And to me, along with the approval of the acquisition, that's when the appropriate time would be to consider also the establishment of a work group. Sure. Yeah, we can pull it for now. That works. Thank you, Clerk. All right. Uh Councilmember Wansley. Thank you, uh Council President Payne. And and thanks for the clerks for helping clarify a lot of that. Um I just want to name a couple things. Um I really wish we had the opportunity to engage with the mayor. I think this is the first time we had the opportunity to see him speak on this matter. And one thing I just want to name cuz we've had this come up a couple of times in exchanges around like key priorities of this body and us making decisions. When we are taking decisions that might not be in agreement with the mayor, that does not mean it's a personal dispute or it's a personal conflict or that's a part about personal issues. It's literally this body and a majority of us who have scrutinized for several years now the aspects of this project and said it falls short and we could do better and we could do something different and that has nothing to do with a personal disdain of the mayor. It's a disagreement with a project that the mayor has put pushing forward and that is democracy. And it's my hope that the mayor will respect the will of this body which we have not seen time and time again when we've made a majority decision that is in disagreement with what he wants and his will. We're just saying let us do our business and it might be a disagreement but what I've heard throughout the course of this conversation is also saying let's figure out where to reroute these resources elsewhere and not to this project. And bringing me to this, I think it is just my flabber my flabbers can't help but be gas it at the thought that uh coming up on the 6-month anniversary of George Floyd and thinking of all the black people who make up the say their names movement who were killed at the hands of police. The idea that the best way to honor them is to build a fortress for those who caused that death is just crazy to me. Or the idea that if you once again are against this project that means you're against Northside. And if then somehow you're against this project, you're not only against Northside but you're also against black people, and you're anti-black. The reaching of this is is interesting to me. And I think this is a dynamic where it's not It is not that. It is very clear that there is an option for the administration, and we've had multiple conversations around this of the shooting range even today could be removed from the fourth precinct. In fact, there's dedicated millions of dollars to the North Community Safety Center that is going to be up for consideration in the upcoming months as part of that overall $100 million uh renovation package for MPD where that could be a component. And I heard that on Tuesday not only a component cuz they're proposing getting a new building for that for the fourth precinct, but to get the community center that once existed there, putting that back in the hands of the community, and also as part of that making sure that there is not a gun range as part of it. There's more than enough money to make sure that proposal happens so that again, black working-class people don't have to deal with it, and as I mentioned on Tuesday, residential working-class families in Windom who have a school 400 ft from where it's being proposed also don't have to bear the burden of housing a cop city. So, I want to make it's not to be against this project means you hate black people, that you don't take black people's violence that they've experienced at the hand of law enforcement serious. That is completely false from the truth. And I would not want to bring in literally this weekend, 4 days away from the 6-year anniversary of George Floyd's murder by the police, by the city of Minneapolis neglecting to fulfill its responsibility to give every resident safety. The idea that the way we reward that memory is through giving police oh, uh checking a item on their wish list, their Amazon wish list. This is essentially what this is. So, I just wanted to put that in the space. If someone who is black and like, "Oh, dang. I didn't know I hate black people cuz I don't want to see a $40 million not go towards actually investing in the things that keep black people safe, like housing, like education." And we all agree that has not been happening at the hands of the city. There's been a long documented history of divestment in black working class in poor communities across the city. And we're saying, "Great. There's agreement there. Why waste $38 million on a on building a space that does not do anything, doesn't provide a housing apartment at 30% AMI, doesn't provide groceries or anything of that nature, child care?" So, I just wanted to provide that. Um and again, say I am so excited about the prospect of going to Alifa, who at no point have said they're resistant of this idea of us talking about something different. In a modest, reasonable way that allows us to move money to where Ashley matters most. I will reaffirm that we are grounding this conversation in the action in front of us, which is to deny the approval of this item, and it is not personal. And let's make sure that we keep those comments in that spirit. And I will recognize Council Member Chavez. Thank you, President Payne. I wish Mayor Frey would have stayed here because he did not take the temperature down, but he also did fail to mention that this body actually voted to move money for this back in December. So, I at least wanted to mention that because we did take an action on the City Council regarding that. I will say that I do believe that these sites need to be removed from North Minneapolis, and I personally recommend staff to go find leases somewhere else to move those sites out of North Minneapolis as soon as possible because that is a concern that many of our colleagues have mentioned up here. But, it does not require a new $40 million project to remove these sites in North Minneapolis. I do want these sites out of North Minneapolis based on the concerns that my colleagues have said. But, again, it doesn't require a $40 million investment to do that. It just does not. It's not practical. It doesn't make sense. And, it would not be fiscally responsible. So, I at least wanted to mention that because I do think it is important that in this body we make it clear that our colleagues are saying they don't want it in their neighborhoods and we should figure out what we're going to do to get them out of there as soon as possible. Thank you. Council member Truck Thai. Thank you, um, Mr. President. I am hoping to just correct the record on a couple of things that were brought up, um, during the mayor's brief appearance here today. Thing number one, the the uh the city council has voted twice, uh, to unanimous unanimously twice in support of this project. Um, I guess that's a version of the truth. Uh, what the body did vote on unanimously twice, um, was adopting the 2026 legislative agenda and policy positions. So, our lobbying platform. In it, the body is not expressing support for, um, the item that's before us today. In it, the body is expressing unanimous support for asking the state for general obligation bonds to help pay for half of this project. Session just ended. Did we get $19 million to pay for this project? No, we did not. This is an appropriate time then for us to um it and it's it's consistent with the um with the actions we've taken for us now um to deny this item. So, I just don't want it to be misconstrued that this body has somehow expressed its support and voted twice unanimously for this project when that's quite literally not what happened. Um the second thing I just wanted to correct the record on is I I I really appreciate uh being given the feedback of um owning when I change my mind. Uh that council members or this body should own when we change our mind on something. And you know, I I know that um it is it is tough sometimes to track the discussions that we're having here um on this on this dais for um for others. Uh And I understand that the mayor's office is is a very busy one. Um so, maybe they don't have time to watch our proceedings um and understand the context of the discussions we're having before official acts are presented to them. I I can appreciate that. But um I just want to I want to note that several times um when the IGR platform has been brought up in relationship to this item, I have heard my colleagues um own from this dais in public that perhaps we should have had a different approach to the IGR platform, that perhaps um we should have uh I've I've heard us own the the oversight that came with um not separating out the community safety and training wellness facility general obligation bond request for the state. So, I just um I think the intent of trying to bring the temperature down and then saying condescending and inflammatory things is um tough to hold. Thank you, Mr. President. >> What's Yep. Yep. Decorum. Yeah. Uh Vice President Nowlin Um uh thank you. I I do want to go back and say as someone who publicly supported the project, having a new building, a better facility, I will support that any day. And uh I didn't get the opportunity to have ask question for the mayor um before he left. Uh I would have asked, you know, what is the plan of paying this $38 million? Has he, you know, started to uh go to the capital and ask for funding? Uh we have about what, 12 delegations, uh Senate and House. Who has he been talking to? Has he sat down with them? Um is he looking into the city of Minneapolis only paying this project? There's a lot of questions that that I I have raised and um like like I say, you know, I always clear about where I stand and not back down how I what I voted for. And I would love to see uh better leadership, uh better clear answers of how we're going to pay this. And remember this, this was like what is it, a couple cycles ago? This item's about to die and was like today we're going to vote it down. I gave a lifeline and gave the administration opportunity you come back with better plan. Only plan I have heard from the mayor's leadership or administration was that let's just buy it and hope we [snorts] will find the money in the future. Well, that costs a lot of money for the city of Minneapolis. We're going to spend $6 million plus the upkeep of the property. And we don't know how many day how many years we'll be sitting on there. Might be next 20 years. That is not a smart decision. So, again um I I I really heard and I just want to make it very honest, clear. Um I heard my colleagues who are in Northside uh deserve it to be listened to, deserve to be supported. Um and they are saying that having the shooting range in the Northside is a problem. Can let's just address that there's so many ways to address it. We can have uh administration start working on it a different plan than this today. This is not the only answer. There are other ways we can have that removed from Northside and take it outsourced to somewhere else. That is the administration's duty and work. For us is to support it. And I am uh making the commitment and and the support that I I heard you my colleagues your frustration. Um and I will be uh listening and supporting any capacity I can. I'm sorry today this is just a uh one way of supporting uh but because of the circumstances of not paying not having $38 million and no action being taken from the state, no uh I I don't think I have heard uh uh you know us just you know talking to the delegation. We have Minneapolis delegation who represent Minneapolis who publicly came out and say they would not support that. That is a lack of leadership in in the top of the city, in my opinion. We should be having our delegates fight for us, and they're not doing that. So, there's there's that gap between between that we have to deal with it. So, again, um I'm supportive of better facilities and better training for our facility for our staff. Uh and let's just do it in in a in a different way than just buying an empty building and being stuck with forever. Thank you. Council Member Stevenson. Colleagues, we have gone around and around and around on this issue. Um and honestly, we all knew how we were going to vote on this when we came in here today. Uh I think most of the people in the crowd knew how every one of us was going to vote on this when we came in here today. I don't think anyone has changed their mind since the last hour and a half, two hours of this discussion. Um and I am begging you, let's please vote uh and move on to the next item. Uh we all know exactly how this vote is going to go. So, let us please do it. I am calling the question. Is there a second? Second. Uh the clerk will call the roll. This is not open for debate. On the motion to end debate, uh Council Member Rainville. No. Vetaw. I. Palmisano. No. Chavez. No. Warren. No. Sheehan. No. Warsame. I. Chughtai. I. Wedington. I. >> [clears throat] >> Chaudry. I. Stevenson. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are eight I's and five nays. That requires two-thirds to succeed, so that motion fails, and I will recognize, I believe it was Council Member Warren was in queue. Thank you so much, Council President, and thank you, Council colleagues. Um I'm not going to take too much of your time because I appreciate all of the heartfelt sentiments that are coming from my um my colleagues on this dais and on this body. My only request is this. This is my only request right now as it pertains to this issue. Is that when things are coming up in regards to the the safety center or the training for center getting moved and doing this and the gun range and whatever else, don't paint it as some boogeyman and some boogeymonster and whatever else the case is so that all the kind of folks is acting like they've lost their international minds about it, and then there's all of this grave hesitation because that's how Northside doesn't get what it needs. You turned it into a monstrosity of a nightmare for the city for them to think that, you know, the the boogeyman is coming and there's going to be this place where cops and copters are just flying in and out, and it's going to be this whatever the case is. I have no idea. I don't even know what that even what it what it would look like. Okay? But the whole thing is is that then all this opposition comes. I hear you when you say, "Oh yes, we we're going to support the Northside and, you know, whatever." And and um let's just think of a different way to do it because as soon as we request a new gun range for the police department or a training facility somewhere else, they're going to paint it as another cop city or a cop whatever, and then it's going to be voted down and shut down again. There's not going to be another opportunity. Anytime it's something for the police, 12, one time, whoever y'all want to call them, it's anytime it's something for that, guess what? It's going to get voted down and shut down. Because there are members that do not, under any circumstances, like them folks, whatever. Please don't ascribe motive. >> not listen, I Hey. So, here we are. Call it both ways. Here we are. You know, and so my request is that when it's brought before you again, now, next time, no matter what it looks like and what the cost is, cuz we're asking now for it to be out of Northside, so no matter what it looks like and what the cost is, cuz a gun range is going to cost some money. And you got to find somewhere for it to go. And if it's a standalone gun range, it's going to need some space, too. Okay? So, it's going to cost you. And I don't want to hear nothing about the police department over budget and all the rest of this other stuff and everything else, because you said that you heard the cries of North Minneapolis. You said that you heard the cries of the My cousin's house butts right up against the fourth precinct. This is seri- like, we're asking We're We're asking. That was our whole community center. We're asking. Those things are hard to come by on the Northside. We're asking. So, the next time that it presents itself, we're hoping, now praying, that uh people will hear our humble cries and the cries that we carry of our constituents to say, "Yeah, we going to bring about change in our community." And it's not going to be shut down by the members of this body for anything that that comes when we say we want it out of North side, it's going to cost some money. That's all I'm going to say is it's going to cost some money and I have to keep saying that because for whatever reason, like, you know, what I mean, I don't know. We We can't get a gift acceptance for that. I don't know. But we It's It's going to cost some money. It's going to cost some change. Change costs. So, we either pay now or we pay later. Pay now or pay later. But if we don't pay now, doggone it, I wouldn't care if it was tomorrow at 2:00 they brought before this body and said, "We got somewhere else for the gun range and the sock to go." Everybody better be in all applause with all of that. Cuz otherwise it doesn't make any sense if we're going to keep shooting down everything that has to do with the transformation of my community. That's utterly ridiculous and it's disrespectful. And I would say then people don't do nothing but lie and play in your face, which I don't accept. I'm North side, the end. Council Member Palmisano. I think there might have been somebody before me in queue before, but um with nobody else speaking up, I will just go ahead. Um I need to make it clear that I haven't voted twice on this. I've been voting for 7 years to have this as a priority on the City Council. This was agreed to later then as a result of the Safe and Thriving Communities report. That is what reimagined it across several departments and then it entered the capital plan for the past 5 years. I have back with Medaria Arradondo as our chief brought chiefs that all work in our community from the University of Minnesota and Metro Transit and the county to give them a presentation and do a bonding tour with legislators about what this could be. This isn't a short-term thing, folks. This project was on the books as of 2019 as police only. It was in 2022 as a new re-envisioned state. It was in 2023 and 2024 after the MDHR settlement was approved by the city. That was when the facilities training and well wellness assessments were completed because we had to because of the settlement agreement. Guess who was interviewed and helped to get that in there as a priority. In 2025 capital funding was allocated for pre-design. In September of 2025, the commissioner and the COO presented on community safety facilities and council approved the state bonding list. That's not saying the money doesn't exist. It does. That's not saying that we can't do something else with this property in the interim. You've all heard that for those of you that were willing to have a presentation from city staff. That's not saying it couldn't be something else. I spoke to that on Tuesday and I won't repeat myself. And Council member Whiting has been trying to vet a plan with you all to collaboratively decide how this work happens together. We had authors at the state level and my colleagues went to them and told them not to sponsor it and back away from it this year. My point here is not to tell you that I've been doing this for longer than you all, but I have. My point is, and I don't care what the mayor says here, it has been a top priority for me. And it has been in previous council bodies, entire council bodies. A councils that showed up ready to govern in the moments they were in. Seeing no one else left in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the motion to deny item number five. Council member Rainville. No. Vita. No. Palmisano. No. Chavez. Aye. Warren. No. Sheaf. No. Wansley. >> Aye. Chuthtai. Aye. Wheeler. No. Childrey. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There's seven ayes and six nays. That uh motion passes and item number five is denied and that completes the Committee of the Whole report. Uh next is the report of our Enterprise and Labor Relations Committee, which will be presented by its chair, Council member Palmisano. The ELR Committee has 12 items to bring forward. Item number one is an ethics education ordinance. Item number two is a collective bargaining agreement for the Minneapolis Professional Employees Association. Item number three is a bid for public service building elevator repairs and maintenance. Item four is a bid for the traffic maintenance facility re-roofing project. Item number five is a contract with Barr Dun McNeil and Parker for ERP program management. That's a professional services contract. Item number six is a contract with HCM Architects for architectural and engineering design services for our water distribution facility project. Items number seven, eight, nine, and 10 are legal settlements. These are the workers compensation claims of Troy Bjornstad, Kristina Schmidt, Stephen Swanson, and Michael Tracy. Sorry, item number nine is the legal settlement of a workers comp claim for Michael Tracy. Item number 11 is a legal settlement that is not a workers compensation claim. It is Corto Gayflor Kapinaku versus the City of Minneapolis. And item number 12 is a gift acceptance from the Public Rights Project and Safer Communities Initiative. I will move approval of the full report. Councilmember Palmisano has moved approval of the committee report. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Chavez. Uh thanks, Council President Payne. I just like to move item number eight for a separate vote. No need for discussion. Uh Councilmember Chavez has moved to take up item number eight as a separate vote. Is there any discussion on the remainder of the part? Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on all items except item number eight. Councilmember Rainville. I. Vita. I. Palmisano. I. Chavez. >> I. Warren. I. Sheehan. I. Wonsley. I. Chughtai. I. Whiting. I. Chaudry. I. Stevenson. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are 13 eyes. Those items carry. Next, we will take up item number eight. And I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Rainville. Aye. Vigil. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. No. Warren. Aye. Schafer. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chugtai. Uh nay. Whiting. Aye. Chaudry. Aye. Stevenson. No. Vice President Osman. [snorts] Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 10 ayes and three nays. That item carries, and that completes the committee report. Uh next, we have uh our Public Health and Safety and Equity Committee, which will be presented by that committee's chair, Council member Chavez. Thank you, Mr. President. The Public Health, Safety, and Equity Committee will be bringing forward 16 items. Item number one, authorizes a contract with the Forest Lake Sportsmen's Club for police in-service trainings and outdoor range facility use. Item number two, authorizes contract amendments with AGE and Associates Inc. Inc. and GBR Inc. for interpreting and translation services. Item number three, authorizes a contract amendment with Certified Language International for remote remote interpreting services. Item number four, authorizes the submittal of a grant application to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security, and Emergency Management for bomb detection equipment and training. Item number five, accepts the ASPCA Northern Tier Shelter Initiative Grant for spay and neuter training. Item number six, accepts the ASPCA Northern Tier Shelter Initiative Grant for animal welfare conference attendance. Item number seven is a gift acceptance from the Taos Health and Wellness Recovery Center. Item number eight is a gift acceptance from New Mexico Tech. Item number nine is a gift acceptance from the Association of State and Territorial Health. Item number 10 is a gift acceptance from the Minneapolis Fire Foundation. Item number 11 authorizes a joint powers agreement with Hennepin County for provision of domestic violence advocacy services. Item number 12 approves a rental dwelling license reinstatement for 4010 Dupont Avenue North, owner Riley O'Neal. Item number 13 authorizes a contract with Minneapolis Downtown Improvement District for safety outreach services and requests an early signature from the mayor. Item number 14 authorizes a sponsor a kennel program for Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. Item number 15 approves a legislative directive related to the police department's participation on the Homeland Security Task Force. And item number 16 approves a legislative directive related to police policy and procedures quarterly reports. I'm with approval of these items. Uh Council member Chavez has moved approval of the committee's report. Uh before we dispose of this, uh without objection, Mr. Clerk, Council member Warsame would like to uh revisit item number eight. As an eight. Great. So, that will be updated to reflect nine eyes and four nays. Okay. Thank you for that. Is there any discussion on the PHSEE report? Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. One more time. Council member Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Warren. Aye. Sheehan. Aye. Warsame. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Whiting. Aye. Chowdhury. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and the report is adopted and that completes the reports of our standing committees. The next order of business is notice of ordinance introductions. We have three notices today. We took up item number one at the beginning of our meeting. Items two and three are from Council Member Chavez who give notice of intent to introduce at the next regular meeting of the City Council, the subject matter of two ordinances amending the [snorts] health and sanitation code. The first decriminalizing the possession of cannabis paraphernalia and the second decriminalizing the possession of drug paraphernalia. Are there any questions, uh Council Member Chavez? >> Thank you, Council President Payne. Colleagues, I emailed all of you yesterday regarding these two NOIs related to cannabis and drug paraphernalia. During the process of this, uh in the previous paraphernalia process, I heard from many of you as well as from the administration that more time was necessary to study this issue and would be helpful to people. I have drafted a legislative directing directive asking staff to look into this particular issue and as we wait to hear back on um comments from staff on their thoughts, I want to bring forward these two NOIs that will be connected to that legislative directive and a future policy to be brought forward to the Public Health, Safety, and Equity Committee. I want to be clear there is no specific timeline on regards these policies, but I want to make sure uh that they were noticed uh for a future date. Seeing no one else left in queue, those notices are hereby given and no further action is required at this time. The next order of business is the introduction and referral calendar. As we dispensed with item one at the beginning of the meeting, uh we will proceed to item two, which is a motion by Council Member Chavez, Osman, Chughtai, and Chaudhry to introduce an ordinance amending the Administration Code adding a new section 18.210 relating to law enforcement agency agreements, concealment of identity for first reading and referral to the Public Health, Safety, and Equity Committee for a public hearing to be held at the June 3rd meeting. May I have a motion to approve this introduction? So moved. Second. It's moved and approved. Seeing no one else in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Warren. Aye. Shaffer. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Weiding. Aye. Chowdhry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Is absent. President Payne. Aye. There are 12 ayes. That motion carries and the item is referred to the Public Health, Safety, and Equity Committee. >> [clears throat] >> The next order of business is resolutions. We have seven resolutions on our agenda today, all of which received presentations at the beginning of our meeting. Do council members have any comments to add? Is there a motion to adopt these resolutions? So moved. >> So moved. Second. The clerk will call the roll. Council member Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. >> Aye. Warren. Aye. Shaffer. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Weiding. Aye. Chowdhry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 12 ayes. That carries and those resolutions are adopted. Our next order of business is unfinished business. We have two items today. Item number one is the consideration of an appeal submitted by 1717 Developers LLC regarding the property known as the Tyler Street Northeast John Cook House. While a potential property sale is being finalized, I'm going to move to postpone consideration of this to our July 16th meeting. Can I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Warren. Aye. Schafer. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Whiting. Aye. Chowdhury. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman is absent. President Payne. Aye. There are 12 ayes. That motion carries and we will take this up at our July 16th meeting, hopefully never again. Um next we have reconsideration of the mayor's veto Council action 2026A-0328 denying consent to the mayor's nomination of Toddrick Barnette to the appointed position of Commissioner of Community Safety for a term ending January 2030. I'll ask the clerk to explain our next steps. Mr. President, um as you noted, the mayor has vetoed Council's denial of consent to the mayor's nomination of Toddrick Barnette to the appointed position of Community Safety Community Safety Commissioner. This matter is contained in LIMS file number 2026-00261 which is linked from today's agenda. Pursuant to section 4.4C3 of the city charter and Council rule 7.8, an act vetoed by the mayor is returned to Council for automatic reconsideration at its next meeting. That matter is now before the body in the exact same form without debate and without amendment and the immediate question to be decided by Council is as follows. Shall the decision of the city Council stand notwithstanding the veto of the mayor? If at least 2/3 of the Council or at least nine members vote in the affirmative, the mayor's veto is overridden and the original act is adopted, meaning the appointment is rejected. If there are fewer than nine affirmative votes, the veto is sustained and the nomination remains pending before the body until Council takes some dispositive action. With that, Mr. President, I'm prepared to call the roll on the reconsideration of that item. Okay. Uh are there any questions, Vice President Osman? Yeah, and this could be the clerk. I don't know if you or the city attorney how long can the mayor do this back and forth, back and forth? Right? I'm just saying and then if you can can explain this three three three thing rule where he has three times to nominate >> there's no discussion on that. >> There's not a discussion so It's a clarification of the process. Council members, just just a question. I just want to get the process of I I heard about the three rule or the three times rule. He has three times to to nominate and then we we have an opportunity to send some suggestions and then for him to choose one. Uh focusing on the procedure for this veto, Mr. Clerk. Yep. Or Mr. Attorney. >> Yeah, I I would defer to the attorney. I think I think those questions are generally in order because they are directly related to what would happen so I I'll defer to the attorney. Sure, uh Council President, uh Council Vice President Osman. Um this matter can continue until it is disposed of. So, either the the City Council were to override the mayor's veto, then it's done. If the City Council does not override the mayor's veto, but considers the matter again, votes it down again, the mayor can veto it again and it would just keep going until there either were a veto override or a vote in the affirmative to um nominate the commissioner or or if the uh nominee nomination was withdrawn, the the three times references in charter, the the mayor can appoint can nominate three separate people. Oh, people. Um, and it's and then if that those nominations fail or the mayor fails to timely make the nominations, then the city council can pick a slate. But it doesn't apply to this. The mayor has fulfilled his obligation to make a nomination and until this nomination is disposed of, we we don't get to talking about number two. Just one one more um the Can you talk a little bit about August 2nd? Um deadline, does that includes that's when the nomination stops or a veto stops or Just a veto. >> Council president, council vice president, that isn't related to the veto. That that's how long the holdover period ends. So, where the holdover period is relevant is the mayor has to make a nomination within 90 days after the end of a holdover period or else the council can pick from the slate. The mayor made his nomination before the end, so he met his obligation. Um, at the end of the holdover period, the mayor would need to appoint someone as an interim community safety commissioner and that could be Commissioner Barnett or it could be someone else of the mayor's choosing. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so to summarize the motion to reconsider the veto of the denial of the appointment of Todrick Barnett. Uh, to override the veto requires at least nine affirmative votes. The clerk will call the roll. Council member Rainville. No. Vita. No. Palmisano. No. Chavez. Aye. Warren. No. Sheehy-Skeffington. >> No. Wansley. I. Chuc Thai. I. Weiding. No. Chaudry. I. Stevenson. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are seven eyes and six nays. That motion fails and the mayor's veto is sustained. At this point, the council's decision to deny the the appointment doesn't stand. With that, I'll move to refer the nomination of the community safety commissioner to city clerk to be placed on file while we finalize a proposal for next steps. What this motion would do is essentially freeze this item in the legislative process pending some further direction or action by the body. If adopted, the consideration of this appointment would temporarily be disposed of but can be recalled for further consideration via notice on a city council agenda. This motion would pause the cycle we are currently in which, as the attorney just stated, it's a infinite loop uh of uh whatever this is, which has resulted in us sending at least two official acts to the mayor that were subsequently vetoed. May I have a second to that motion? >> Second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council Member Rainville. I. Vita. I. Pomasan. I. Chavez. I. Warren. I. Shafer. I. Wansley. I. Chuc Thai. I. Weiding. I. Chaudry. I. Stevenson. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries and that motion is adopted. That nomination is filed with the city clerk. Next, we have the order of new business, items one, two, and three. These are the mayor's nominations of Eric Hansen as the community planning and economic development director, Tim Sexton as public works director, and Rachel Sear as emergency management director. I'll move to refer these nominations to their appropriate committees as listed on the agenda for the setting of public hearings. I want to take a moment to touch on a standard process that we've begun for all mayoral nominees. I will be soliciting questions and themes to be asked of nominees. This is to develop a standardized framework for questions that will be posed to mayoral nominees. Questions will be compiled into major themes and overarching questions and will be provided to council members for review but and then provided to nominees prior to their public hearing. This will allow nominees to prepare written responses to these major questions and get an understanding of council member priorities that they should be prepared to speak to. This will both help nominees be more equipped to address council questions and provide more of a structured procedure that ensures all council members have their questions and priorities addressed. May I have a second to this motion? Second. Uh Councilmember Mosley. Oh, I'm actually in queue for the previous Well, no, I have the resolution regarding the Oh, correct. Yes. Yes. Um So, I was instructed by the clerks to get in queue afterwards but the queue didn't load. So, you were already in a flow. Councilmember Mosley, go ahead. Awesome. Um I would just like to move the resolution that's in uh front of many of you all uh that's titled um requesting immediate national search for qualified candidates for consideration for the next commissioner of the office of community safety or public safety here. Um similar to what's already been expressed, I I think I'm not the only one up here who wants to continue in this endless cycle of a back and forth with with the mayor and the motion that we just voted on to refer to the clerk does offer um uh a bit of a reprieve, uh but the the fact of the matter is we have still now taken two votes to vote down this nominee, and I know there is a number of us who have expressed a desire to move forward and also have laid out very clear examples of why we felt there was a need for a new commissioner of community safety. Um and particularly, I think our residents deserve to have a commissioner of community safety who is effective, innovative, and will deliver measurable results, um and who is serious about implementing the city's safe and thriving communities action plan. Um and we also need further stability in our public safety system. So, this resolution is asking the mayor to move forward with the search as we've done with many of the executive positions, and finally give um the city of Minneapolis uh the commissioner of public safety who will excel at keeping our communities and city safe. Um so, I hope this could be an opportunity for unity as we try to figure out next steps on on how to move forward on this item. Um and with that, I will ask for a second. Second. Council Member Warsame has uh moved to pass a resolution requesting for um a national search for the safety commissioner, and that's been properly seconded. I'll recognize Council Member Vita. Thank you, Chair. Um President Payne, I'm sorry. The I Yeah, I won't be supporting this today because I preferred a different route with this. I I really would like us to do an evaluation on the entire department before we move forward with the national search on the um public safety commissioner. Personally, I would like to see um I mean, this has been in place for 4 years. We've had two public safety commissioners. I think we're in a unique position where we can take some time as a body, especially with the conversations around type funding coming up and and other things. I would prefer to do an evaluation of the the entire department before we make a decision to start with a new national search and invest in that at at this time. Council member Schaefer. Yeah. Was there a fiscal note attached to this? I'm just wondering where the funding for this national search is coming from. Council member Bonseley. Yes. If Council member Schaefer may recall, we already have a existing contract within HR to do exactly this, which is to do searches. So, this is already part of the operating budget of existing department. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And um Yeah, I would not be supporting this today per the reasons Council member Vita brought forward. Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President Payne. I believe that my comment that I was getting ready to make as you were explaining the new process for appointees lines up with this resolution and this ordinance. I think it is completely unfair to all of the new nominees that are being presented before us that we did not have a process that was same or similar to this to allow them to study the questions that we were going to bring before them when they came before this body. And now we've changed up the way that we're doing this whole process, which I think is is really slide it cuz it just kind of gives a in and a un to how does this person feel about that person or what's happening? And everyone's feelings get all mushy and in the air. And so, I don't I don't really like that new process. I I think we voted on it beforehand. I like to keep my vote to myself, private. And this right here, um I don't I'm I don't think that we need to do a national search for anybody until we clean up the house that we're in right now. And right now, because this current house is a mess, we got to clean it up, and then we can go look for what it is that we need, not what we want just because it feels different. Because otherwise, you're just going to end up with more of the same. Once you find out that you remove one thing, it it really could be something else that's the problem. You're taking out the toilet, and it really was the sink that was leaking. You don't even know. So, this is ridiculous. Um I'm not supporting this, and I don't want to support the game that we're playing with the submit your questions to Joe Blow, and then we'll let them know what you said thing. I don't want to do that, either. Council Member Rainville. Thank you. I I also will not be voting for this, because I do agree with uh what Council Member uh Vita had said. This is a time to think big, and this is no reflection on the author's idea, because I agree. But I think we got to look at the whole department. We're we're We want different public safety, but are we getting it? That's the question I have. Are we Are we getting what we paid for with this whole department? And let's figure out a way to answer that, and then answer the next question about if we if if there should be a commissioner. Council Member Chavez. Good. We can vote. Uh seeing no one else left in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the Wansley resolution. Council member Rainville. No. Vitta. No. Palmisano. No. Chavez. Aye. Warren. No. Schafer. No. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Whiting. No. Chaudhry. Aye. Stevenson. Abstain. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are six ayes, six nays, and one abstention. That motion fails, correct? >> [sighs] >> Okay. Um, now on to new business. Uh, again, we have items one, two, and three, which are the mayor's nomination of Eric Hansen for CPAC, Tim Sexton for public works, and Rachel Sayre as emergency management director. Uh, I will move to refer these nominations to their appropriate committees as listed on the agenda for setting of a public hearing. Uh, and again, reiterate this process of standardizing how we're going to be moving these nominees through. May I have a second to this motion? I second. Uh, the clerk will call the roll. Council member Rainville. Aye. Vitta. Aye. Palmisano. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Warren. Yes. Schafer. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Chughtai. Aye. Whiting. Aye. Chaudhry. Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and those nominations are referred to the standing committees in the next cycle to set a public hearing. Um, item number four is a staff direction that we dispensed of at the beginning of the meeting, and finally we have the order of announcements. Councilmember Warren. Thank you, Council President um Payne. I am going to um give an announcement at this time. I'm going to be introducing a referral for a legislative directive concerning the conditions, accountabilities, stabilization efforts, and coordinated coordinated city response efforts at Heritage Park Apartments to be formally introduced at the next council cycle, and refer them the legislative direction directive also to the appropriate committees for um considerations. So, due to the numerants a numer- numerous uh different issues that are happening at Heritage Park, I do not sit on all of the standing committees, but I will be submitting information So, you can do it through the standard committee process. You don't need to be a member. Yeah. Okay. I'm just I'm this just part of my announcement. It's uh a little bit out order for announcements. Uh we're trying to announcements is usually for like community events, kind of updates, but So, I was told by Casey Curl to report this during announcement time. >> Okay. Okay. So. May I continue? Sure. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. So, um this is necessary um because I want this to go on the record due to, you know, the number of things that I've already previously been doing, and right now I'm kind of hitting a stop fast, so I needed to get this out so this does go on record, so people will stop playing in my face cuz I don't play that, okay? So, that's why I had to say it so it could be said, all right? Um so, this is this is definitely necessary to ensure timely governmental oversight and coordinated interdepartmental action concerning the ongoing residential concerns related to health, safety, habitability, property management accountability, public safety concerns, and long-term stabilization planning at Heritage Park. So, Heritage Park is having a major issue right now. I wanted to announce this to this body as we were very passionately discussing things that were going on as it relates to housing, and it's in my ward, it's in my community, it needs support, so I'm putting everybody on notice that this is my baby in the backseat that you're going to hear me fussing about for the next however long until what needs to happen happens. Thank you. That sounds like a subject matter that's really appropriate for the public health, safety, and equity committee. Do you agree, Mr. Chair? Sure. >> [laughter] >> Thank you, Chair. >> will make sure that it gets to the right place, and you can rely on our staff to help Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you, Council President and Public Health and Safety Committee Chair. Uh Council Member Stevenson. Yeah, thank you. I had a couple of announcements with the 6th anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. There are a lot of events happening, so on Saturday the 23rd, uh Rise and Remember is having the Night of Honor. It's where uh we honor the community honors um advocates for racial justice. It's a It's a gala. It's a wonderful time, music, it's fun, food, everything. Uh you got to buy tickets for that, so please go on the website and and do that. Um the next is Perry Talks. This is uh a panel discussion again on racial justice put on by Rise and Remember. this is on Sunday the 24th at 2:00. Again, go on the website and sign up. I I really encourage it. And then Monday the 25th, all day festival in George Floyd Square or 38th Chi or 38th and Chicago. It has many names, but please please come down and come to the festival. It's it's an amazing festival. There are a lot of vendors, a lot to do. There's a lot of love, a lot of hope, and a lot of resilience and we're celebrating the community and looking towards a brighter future. So, please please come. 38th and Chi. >> [laughter] >> It's Chi. If you say it Chi >> it the right way. You don't know what you're talking about. >> Okay. Okay. With that, we've completed our business today. With nothing further to come before the council and without objection, this meeting is hereby adjourned. Thank you, everyone.