Thank you. [snorts] Good morning. My name is Aisha Chugtai and I'm the chair of the budget committee. I'm going to call to order our adjourned committee meeting for Friday, December 5th. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments. We ask speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. At this time, I will ask the clerk to call the role so that we can verify the presence of a quorum. Council member Payne, >> present. >> Wanley, >> present. >> Rainville, >> present. >> Vita, >> present. >> Ellison is absent. Osman is absent. Cashman >> present. >> Jenkins absent. Chavez >> present. >> Chowry >> present. >> Palmisano >> present. >> Vice chair Kski >> present. >> Chair Chugai >> present. That's 10 members present. Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum. I will also remind my colleagues that we will be using speaker management today. So please make sure to sign in. Let me do that as well. Okay, today we will begin considering revisions to the to Mayor Fry's 2026 recommended budget. Over the last several months, this committee has received a series of presentations to examine the details of each department's budget requests. This committee has held three public hearings on this budget. Um, and the city council will be hosting the final public hearing this upcoming Tuesday, December 9th, at 6:05 p.m. in these chambers. I want to start with an overview of the process I intend to follow for this meeting. The amendments are ordered in a packet that was sent to all council members and posted in limbs. There are 38 amendments in this packet and we will go through these proposed amendments one by one. Revised amendments are printed on yellow paper in the binders. Any additional revisions will come to you um on yellow sheets of paper as well. As I anticipate, we will be working on amendments all day, considering the number of proposed amendments um and the desire from uh from several members from uh in the body to try to make as much progress as we can today um and and potentially complete this packet. Um I am going to plan to call uh brief recesses throughout the day instead of doing a longer lunch break. So, please flag for me. you can do that by sending me a team's message um when you when you feel like it's time for for a brief recess. Um and so that will help us get through as much um as much uh of the work that that we can today. Um we have a hard stop today at 5:00 because that is um we don't have captioners after that. So um let's try to get through as much as we can between now and then. Um there are additional markup meetings that are scheduled uh for Monday and Tuesday. Um and we will uh cancel those if we get through our work or we'll pick this back up on Monday. As we work through the budget today, please remember to be respectful of each other and of this process. Additionally, please make sure you're signed into speaker management so that you're not asking your neighbor to log in for you to ensure we have accurate time tracking. We will be sticking per our council rules to the appropriate time tracking. Each member on each motion has up to two speeches. Um the first speech is 7 minutes. Um and the second speech is 5 minutes. So we want to be able to track your your time AC uh appropriately. Um do my colleagues have any questions about the process I've outlined? I am not seeing any. With that, we will begin the amendment packet that is in front of us. I will recognize the author of each amendment to introduce their motion and then we will open the floor for discussion on amendments before taking a vote. Staff from the budget office is on hand to address questions that may arise during our discussion as well as the departments whose budgets are being considered for um for changes. With that, amendment number one is the um technical amendments um that are always brought forward by finance staff for any revisions that are needed. Um I'm going to ask budget director Jane Denza to um come up and briefly explain what we have before us in the technicals. Welcome, director. >> Good morning, Chair Chugai, council members. Jane Denza, budget director of finance and property services. As you'll see in the technical amendments file, um there are a number of changes, though fewer than prior years, and largely these are just corrections to the low-level departments um that we initially placed these dollars into for the mayor's recommended budget. So, um for example, in items A through D, um reference the affordable housing trust fund. Um and um uh correct it's a correction of which CPAD low-level department is receiving those dollars. Um similar situation for health um as well as a you know budget neutral shift of um personnel dollars uh of non-personnel dollars. Um so you can see on the bottom of page two um an aggregate table that shows the impact of these changes. So expenditures and revenues tie out evenly. Thank you, director. Are there any questions? I'm not seeing any. I'll move this item for approval. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? The eyes have it and that motion carries. Um, next we will move to amendment number two, which is the mayor's amendments. Um, I will again recognize director Denza to briefly summarize what we have before us. >> Thank you, Chair Chug Thai. Um, item two is a recognition of additional revenue for um the capital uh budget. So, this is an increase in both revenue and expenditure to the 4,100 street uh fund, the street paving capital program. We received additional grant dollars from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. And so this wasn't a technical um because it didn't represent an error, but we just have more information about the total dollar amount receiving from mendot. >> Thank you very much. Um are there [snorts] any questions? I will recognize council member Palmisano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, as Director Desenza said, even though there are less than half the number of amendments to consider this year, we only got about 48 hours to review and research these amendments. And that's a pretty big lift. Um, I've previously asked and will continue to do so that we get this information in a timely manner. Maybe a week ahead of time would have been appropriate so we can all be prepared. Um, as I did not have time to appropriately prepare, I will have questions for the authors and for staff as we go on. Um, but even more concerning than that, we only received a management response that I just opened, but we received it like 15 minutes ago. So, I'm not going to have time to read that. I would like to ask the COO kind of what was the reason for that pause and how we are um going to proceed here if there are any takeaways from that because there is no way that we're going to be able to go and dig into that. Now I am aware that many of you have worked together and have been intimately involved with this process but for those of us who were not invited into those discussions we are at a very serious disadvantage. Council member, um I'm just wondering how your question relates to the amendment that's in front of us, which is about public works. >> We are talking about item number two, right? The mayor's amendment in general. I actually was in Q back on item number one. >> Um and it was just about in general as we start. So, yes, it applies to the technical amendments, but it could also apply to the mayor's amendment. I'm still in quue from before. Gotcha. Thank you, Madame Chair, council members. Um, thank you, Council Member Palmisano. I will first uh apologize for the lateness of this. The responses are written to the original drafting of the amendments. We have been working very hard with the chair and with her staff to revise amendments. I think you will be seeing some of those revised amendments. Many of them uh would be acceptable to the administration under a full agreement. Um however, at this moment, we don't have that full agreement. So, Madame Chair, um, COO Anderson Keller, is it reasonable to expect that those will be flagged for us? I see they'll be in yellow in our packets, but, um, when there is a management response, I I'd like that to be flagged for us. So, I can go in and dig through that packet because I have not had a chance to go through that packet. Um, are there any I mean I get that these conversations have been ongoing and into last night, perhaps this morning. Um, but where are we at on them from your perspective, from the administration's perspective? Chair Chug Thai, Council Member Palmasano. Um, with the help of the chair, her excellent staff, Kai Shelley, we have made great progress, but um, there are a few things to work out. There's a very problematic amendment. I will speak to when it is offered. And um certainly we would and the mayor most prefers to have a signed budget with the council with items we can implement in 2026. Right now we're not there. >> I see. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Pos. This answers all of your questions. Wonderful. Um I'm going to move approval of the mayor's amendments. Does anyone have any questions related to the mayor amendment which is about a grant that we received from MIDOT? I'm not seeing any. So I I will move approval. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. >> Any abstensions. The eyes have it and that motion carries. We will now move to amendment number three. Um this amendment in your packet is in the in yellow. This is a revised version of an amendment with I I don't I actually think that without exception [snorts] every single revised amendment that you see here is a product of um discussions with the administration. Um and the they are a um this is this symbolizes right like the the tremendous amount of progress we actually have made um with with the administration. So um this amendment is actually offered by council member Osman um who I don't see here. So we're going to skip over amendment number three and come back to it. Um, we're going to now move on to amendment number four, which is also revised. Um, for this I'm going to recognize the author, council member Vita, to please present your amendment and make a motion. >> Thank you, chair. Um, so amendment number four comes out of many conversations we've been having here and um, actually conversations that council member Ksky and I have been having for a couple years now. I get to sit on the board of a uh organization that helps with utilities and I've known for years that um funding for these sort of organizations has been lacking for quite some time. So, this amendment um before you is an amendment to um [snorts] set aside $150,000 uh from the franchise fee and then $50,000 ongoing um to serve as a way to help residents with utilities and um this uh council vice president, [snorts] you and I had a conversation about this and you've done a great job at trying to help me out with this, but I I thought we came to a conclusion though that it wouldn't be contingent on the action that is happening um this week, but as I read this, it's saying that it's contingent on the action that's happening this week. >> Gotcha. Um I the goal was to use resources from the climate legacy initiative that um without without impacting any um staff positions that are funded through climate legacy initiative and other programs that have already been appropriated. So, of the new revenue that that um like that could be um that could be generated um by an increase to franchise fees. $200,000 of that 150 one time and then 50 ongoing would be set for >> Yes, completely understand that. But I think where where there may be a little bit of disconnect is is that we don't know where that that ordinance is go like that change is going. So if that doesn't pass or if something happens with that then this whole thing is a wash based on this. [clears throat] >> I see what you're saying. >> And so that is the conversation I was I thought we had been having was like what is the the alternative to it being tied to this franchise fee. >> Um I think I think let's um I think let's consider the item as it's written and see if we can um have our budget staff take a look work with um work with admin to figure out what exists in the base appropriation from climate legacy initiative and franchise fees. um for 2026 that 10 million base and where there's a a a program that may accommodate what council member Vita is saying right now so that her amendment doesn't have to be contingent. If that if that we can figure something like that out then we can come back to it all the way at the end of the packet and make a revision. But for now I think your amendment we can just consider it that way in case that doesn't work out we've got something done. Is that okay? >> Yes, that is. Thank you. >> Excellent. Um any additional comments as you present your amendment? >> Just colleagues, I would really um appreciate the support on this. This is really going to get to what I've been saying. We increased these fees. Somehow residents have increased utility bills and they're looking for additional support from these organizations that help on utility support. And I would like to have um this funding and ongoing funding to help offset some of that cost to residents. >> Wonderful. Um, will you make a motion? >> I'd like to make a motion. >> Wonderful. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Um, we have a proper motion. Any other discussion? And right before that, I'm going to recognize that we've been joined in this meeting by council members um Osman and Jenkins. Uh, council member Kman. >> Oh, thank you, Chair Chugai. I just wanted to note that on um amendment number six, we do have contingency language. And so in case the administration is not able to find a way to work this into the existing $10 million uh allocation in CLI, the other option is to write a contingency clause that says exactly what it says on um on budget amendment number six that says it's contingent on the adoption of the gas franchise fee and electric franchise fee ordinances that we'll be considering next Thursday. So if that first plan doesn't work out, there's the backup plan. >> Yep. So C, Council Member Cashman, that's how the amendment is written right now. >> Number four. Mhm. >> Oh, great. >> Awesome. Thank you. Uh seeing no further discussion, um I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. Rainville. >> Hi >> Vita. >> I >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman. >> I >> Jenkins. >> I >> Chavez. >> I >> Chow. >> I >> Palisano. >> I >> vice chair Kausski. >> I >> chair Chucktai >> I. >> That is 12 eyes. Um that motion carries. Um, we are going to return back up to amendment number three from Council Member Osman. Um, Council Member Osman, will you please present your amendment and make a motion? >> Yes. Uh, thank you so much, Chair. Uh this amendment purpose is to establish zero waste project manager full-time within public works to lead and coordinate and advance the city communitydriven zero waste program. Uh this position will be responsible building a a shared and equivable salad waste recycling system that protects uh public health, advances environmental justice and supports the city in the in the meeting the state goal to achieve 75% recycling rate by 2030. That's one part of it. Uh the second part is uh uh requesting a proposal budget uh 25% ongoing funding to support zero waste work group. This work group will serve as a central comm community rooted structure responsible for strengthening the city zero waste strategies. Um so I will move this amendment for approval. Thank you so much. >> Council member Osman has moved approval. Is there a second? Second. >> Um, we have a proper motion before us. Colleagues, are there any questions? I will recognize Council Member Palmo. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this is these are comments for the authors. I really appreciate the need to continue working towards zero waste. It's one of the only ways that we can reduce and potentially close the herk. Um, but I'm curious why this funding is from solid waste and recycling and not the climate legacy initiative because there's already funding for this in the climate legacy initiative. I wasn't even sure though I assume this has gone through appropriate legal review that this is even an appropriate use of our solid waste and recycling funds. [snorts] Can you tell tell us a little bit about your decisions as to why you're pulling this money directly from solid waste? Um, I'm so sorry. Um, Council Member Osman, I think that might be a question that is most appropriate for the city attorney. >> Well, I guess it is to the extent of is this an allowable use of revenue that we're getting from our solid waste and recycling customers to use it for this purpose. So, uh, council vice president, council member, we think it's a legitimate use, and obviously we'll work closely with the department and make sure that the it's set up in an appropriate way. >> Um, thank you. I'm curious from the author's perspective, and I know he just got here. I want to give him a second to get settled as to why we're pulling this money from solid waste and recycling instead of from um, CLI. um just had a conversation with Bubble Works and this is uh the decision I made and the decision um they were okay with it. So, okay. I mean I I that's not super helpful. Um this isn't a huge amount of money within a large budget, but I I mean there are going to be impacts to the services by any appropriation. And it's not just about the service workers running routes, but also having administration support that they need to organize and be successful. I'm sure that all of us have gotten calls to our offices when a pickup is missed or there's some sort of large or unusual item that we need to ask solid waste and recycling to come back out of their normal weekly scheduling get. Um, you know, I I'm a little concerned about the purpose of this board and what they can accomplish that our paid city staff couldn't. Um, like what results are expected with a $25,000 investment of taxpayer dollars that are not expected from our expert city staff? This is a tier 4 type of body that you're suggesting that we do and you're going to fund it. >> But what's the plan for this work group, the $25,000, and what's the end date? >> The plan is written right here. Please look at the package and that should answer your question. >> Yeah, that's why I'm asking. I am asking for a little bit more detail than is in the written document. [clears throat] >> Um, council member, it's it's similar to the the safe and thriving communities work group that that was established by in the last last budget cycle. >> Thank you. And madam chair, I think my point here is that I do think that our city staff could probably do more with $25,000 worth of funding than uh a work group that we're not going to really be able to move their work forward for this small amount of money in this small amount of time. And that's kind of my point. Thank you. >> Do you want um to have I see uh Deputy Commissioner Hanland. I see Deputy or I see Director Ston. Um do you want any >> No, I understand that they're all right with this. It's a fairly small appropriation, but it these do have impacts. >> Yep. Absolutely. Um I see a few other members in Q. Um I will recognize Council Member Cashman followed by Council Member Chowry. >> Thank you so much, Chair Chai. I wanted to ask Council Member Osman if I could be made a co-author on this amendment. >> Happy to do it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you so much. And I would just like to speak in favor of it. I do think that we're at a bit of an impass when it comes to plans to close the herk and we really need help from the community in guiding that process. I think it would be extremely beneficial for us to have a work group of of experts in the environmental justice world, in the engineering world, in the uh u legal sphere to help us devise strategies to really get to zero waste. And and I also want to add that we um it's my preference and you'll see in budget amendment number six that we allocate any new funding that comes from our franchise fees directly towards efforts that lower energy bills. And so that's why it was important for me that this money didn't come from money generated by franchise fees. It's very important to me that our CLI is to be dedicated completely as much as possible towards efforts that lower energy bills and zerowaste efforts do not lower energy bills. And so I think it's more appropriate that we appropriate this money um through the public works solid waste budget than to be taken from the CLI. And I would like to be uh any new money that comes into the CLI going forward. it would be my preference that it is dedicated towards what you see in budget amendment number six which is the weatherization and retrofitting and efforts to lower bills. So that's uh an answer to your question on the CLI portion. >> Um [clears throat] thank you council member. Uh next I'll recognize council member Chowry. >> Thank you um chair chugai. I say chair chugai right for this committee. [laughter] Um, >> thank you, Council Member Osman, for bringing forward this motion. I think this is really forward-looking uh for us to consider as we are going to have to have discussions about how we are um planning on our contracts with our waste haulers, what it means for the future of the herk, what happens to that facility. And I also wanted to ask you if I could be added as a co-author. >> Happy to do it. Thank you. >> Amazing. Um and I think I just wanted to uplift council member Kman's point um that it's it's highly highly critical that um the climate legacy initiative be used to bring down the amount of energy that our communities are using so we can reduce the burden on them. And um that's like a commitment that I want to make to you uh moving forward on this body that I will continue to push for for new additional funding. Um and I also wanted to say that I think the 25,000 ongoing is a meaningful amount to start these conversations to support a form of work group. I do think we need to create a place where we can have additional community and expert capacity in our conversations around what we can do to ex expedite how we're doing zero waste work cuz I personally feel like [snorts] we have been a little bit late to the game especially with the closure of the herk and the changes that were made at the state legislature um not this previous session but the session before that. So really excited to support this today. >> Wonderful. Thank you very much. Um any anyone else want to get recognized? Um seeing no further discussion on this item, I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley I. >> Rainville I. >> Vita. I >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman. >> I >> Jenkins. >> I >> Chavez. >> I >> Chowdery. >> I >> Palisano. >> I >> vice chair Koski. >> I chair Chuck Tai. >> I. >> That is 12 eyes. That motion carries. Um, next up is amendment number five. Um, this amendment is offered by council member Wansley. Council member Winsley, will you please introduce your amendment and make a motion? >> Thank you. Uh, CVP Chuck Tai. So, this budget amendment restores the original council allocation made during this 2024 budget markup session regarding sidewalk plowing pilots. U, the mayor's proposed budget essentially cuts the additional funding that council made to public works to implement several pilots to improve winter walkability on sidewalks. Uh prior to the mayor's proposed cuts, um I learned in January of this year that public works made an operational budget cut to the program in response to budget amendments. Um they shared and by they the administration um that they believe that they could still implement a successful pilot initiative even though $200,000 of it was shifted away from the program. And I was pleased to hear in despite of the significant significant cut made that the scaledown version of the pilots were successful and significantly helped the public. Um according to staff's own reports, these pilots were able to support clearing sidewalks of over 17 miles and over 900 addresses. uh feedback that I heard immediately after the public works presentation on the 2024 through 2025 pilot program was that there was still significant interest in better understanding what a fully scaled out pilot program with the original appropriation that council made what that will look like and the impacts that it will have especially in areas located around the pedestrian priority network. Um in 2024 it cost the city nearly $7 million to clear road raids. If the city is actually serious about increasing winter walkability, then we must invest dollars to get sidewalks clear as well. Uh we need to be scaling up different strategies and fully uh restore this original mount for sidewalk plowing pilots. Uh can help us understand how far this money can go um and allow us how allow us to have access to additional information on how we can be strategically investing in winter walkability in the future. So, with that, I will move this motion for approval and ask for a second. >> Second. >> Wonderful. Um, any discussion on the sidewalk plowing amendment? I will recognize council member Cashman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and wanted to ask the author um which of the three pilots this would go towards or if it would go towards all three pilots. >> It goes to all three pilots. >> Okay. And my second question is then at what point does this become a program and not a pilot program? I think is there a vision around mo you know moving into this is a formal operational program being implemented by public works and not just uh being piloted. >> So from my understanding that is an operational decision all council can do based off of feedback in the past from PMI. They usually recommend a window of pilot testing. Originally we allocated a preparation for two years that was cut. So again we've never seen the fully roll out of the pilot itself um for the full two years. So your other question in terms of when will it transcend from pilot to full absorption into the general fund and into general programming that would be decided once the pilot is completed which [clears throat] it has not been. >> Okay. And do we have a sense of whether all three pilot programs have been like equally successful or if there is one that really stands out as having the best impact on the safety of our sidewalks? Yeah, Council Member Cashman one, I have no interest in pinning good programs against each other and you sit on the committee where public works literally did a presentation on this matter and cited the good outcomes of all of the initiatives that's included in this pilot and that's where we put information from into the narrative piece. So they share all [snorts] three have been actually successful community members all across the city have been eager in receiving these services and they want to see more and this is why we're doing the restoration. Yeah, I I guess and I I obviously chair the committee where we heard that report, but I do want to understand like the programmatic plan for integrating this and I I'm going to vote for this today, but it's my preference that we identify which of the pilots has been most successful and consolidate the resources into one that can deliver a even bigger impact with an economy of scale. But again, that would be a question for for public works to determine in the roll out of this money. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Council Member Pomono. >> Chair Chug Tai. Um, we have heard I have heard over and over again from residents that they want us to focus on core city services. This isn't just residents from my ward, but all over the city and also from businesses and commercial properties and visitors, too. This appropriation comes directly from the snow and ice control budget. What is more basic than removing snow from our streets? I have not supported this in the past and I cannot support this now. An appropriation or an earmark is a cut. It is a cut to other city services. A $600,000 appropriation within TMR, Transportation Maintenance and Repair, will undoubtedly mean a decrease or a slowdown in pre-treating, in snow removal from streets and bike lanes, from corner clearance, from pedestrian refuge, from other things. It will mean a decrease in staffing from transportation maintenance and repair. So much so that staff from other public works divisions will have to help out in emergencies if they are available. So running a snow removal process on hoping enough people are available is really not the way to do things. Um I I guess I would like to call up Director Ston for this one to ask how this will impact core city services. Um as he does I will offer this that last night there was a there was a existing water main break in my ward that is currently flooding a brand new Eline station due to have a grand opening on Saturday. Um, TMR is who the water department was calling this morning to ask could they go out and remediate ice. We all have these kinds of things that happen as one-off needs in our ward and we do need TMR staff to be available for them to be staffed up and to be able to respond in these kinds of, you know, unforeseen [snorts] accidents that happen every single day. Um, Director Ston, I'm curious exactly how this appropriation will impact core city services. >> Welcome, director. Please begin by introducing yourself. >> Yeah, thanks. Uh, Tim Ston, public works director. Um, Chair Chuckai and Council Member Paul Mazano. Um, you know, the the pilot, we've really only had just one full winter snow season for the pilot. Um what we found last year was the most successful approach was uh the most cost-effective approach was really giving grants to neighborhood organizations had relationships with their neighbors could help support them through the the plowing or excuse me the the sidewalk clearing in addition to the work that we do for corner and intersection clearing already. Um the your question about the impacts to services. Um [clears throat] some of this work, you know, we're estimating about three transportation maintenance and repair staff would need to be reallocated from other work to do this work that is typically done by property owners um or neighborhood organizations or they can contract this out. So losing three staff in addition to some of the other amendments that are brought forward today that would further reduce transportation maintenance and repair staff um will slow down our our ability to respond to things like you brought up emergencies along with uh delaying and reducing the level of service for things like snow clearing in the winter. I will say that our idea behind this would be to reallocate existing staff versus hiring new because these are part-time positions only needed in the winter. Um and that makes it further complicates the situation because uh not all staff want to do this kind of work. So um but it also makes it a little hard to to reallocate folks. Um but that's that's our thought right now. It's hard to say specifically what that level of service reduction would be because so many of our public service workers do a lot of different things in the winter that all relate to snow clearing in different ways. >> Thank you. The pedestrian priority network, my understanding is it's mostly downtown. It consists of commercial building owners who tend to be very compliant with sidewalk clearing rules. [clears throat] Is that >> right? Am I wrong? >> Sure. Chai. Council member Palmazano. um we have you know 20 to 30 miles of pedestrian priority network around the city. So while there is significant amount sort of in the downtown core area [snorts] it does extend throughout the city. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um let's see. Next we have council member Vita. >> Thank you chair. Um my question was for director Ston. I just wanted to make sure I I heard what you said correctly. Um, was it that the programs with the snow plowing removal? I know we have someone in Ward 4 who works with public works on helping with the seniors or people with disabilities getting their uh snow removed or help with yard work sometimes in the in the fall and in the spring. But did you say that those programs are working better like when you work with the neighborhood organizations to have the removal than um is that working basically? >> Yeah. Sure. Tag council member VA. Um what we found we've only had one year of the pilot. So I appreciate the earlier conversation about the pilot and what when it becomes a full program because of limited snow the last two winters. I think really last year was our first full roll out. What we found was it was very coste effective to work with neighborhood organizations to give them grants sort of low burdening grants to neighborhood organizations so that they could figure out the way to clear the snow for neighbors, seniors, people with disabilities and others who struggle to clear the sidewalks. They know them. um they have uh you know we provided them with equipment and other things that they could use the grants for. We found that was very cost-effective and the neighborhood organizations that we worked with really appreciated that because it further reinforced like the role of neighborhood organizations in the community and so there was a lot of advantage to that and we found that it was very coste effective and effective overall. We also did some of the other clearing work last year in a limited sense. So the pedestrian priority network along with some spot clearing around the city for neighbors in need. What we found though was that some of that had to be done by contractors. It was very expensive and really not scalable at least from our initial learnings to do that in sort of like a spot approach around the city not working through the neighborhood organizations. Okay. Does that make sense? >> Yes, it does. And thank you for repeating yourself but okay. So, um I do appreciate that Council Member Wanley continues to work on this, but I think the burden that I deal with, uh in Ward 4 is more around, um what we're doing in the pilot with the neighborhood organizations, having folks, um reach out to people who request it through my office or through their neighborhood groups or through 311 that they're requesting assistance. And typically what what we work on um is I mean for probably for the entire north side is uh folks are getting citations or someone is coming to the door saying hey can you clear your walkway and they say I'm not able to. So if there's not a neighbor there that can help on those blocks then you know we send out the North Side Bulldogs or we send out McKinley Neighborhood Association to help those neighbors. And so I want to make sure that we continue to fund that and that we have these uh these positions to help in those larger scale scale matters that may be removed. So I I personally have never had anyone ask me for municipal snow plowing, but I have had someone ask me for someone to come over and clear their sidewalk or um you know cut their grass because they don't want to get citations from the city of Minneapolis. So, uh, thank you for the work, the pilot that you've done this far, and I'm hoping that we can develop a bigger program, a more sustainable program in years to come. Um, and and I think that's what's most needed in in my ward. So, I appreciate you all committing to that work and continuing to do it. >> Thank you. Next, I I don't see Oh, next, I'll recognize Council Member Wanley, followed by Council Member Chowry. >> Yeah. Thank you, uh, CBP Chuck Tai. I just wanted to, um, offer a little bit more context around the, um, administration's response around, uh, cost effectiveness. So, just reiterating before the program was ever fully committed, uh, the administration made a $200,000 cut to it, which limited what you could do, um, with the pilots itself. So, it did force a container of cost effectiveness because you were short $200,000 and had to use as a baseline for how to actually administer the three components of the pilots. Um, so we once again have never seen as highlighted how this program will look like with it being fully rolled out because there were cuts made before it was even implemented. Um, I also want to emphasize um this dynamic around service impacts or service delivery. Um especially we learned this in in response to the lighting dynamic and in that we learned we have financial policies that actually gives the administration um also specifically key departments like public works the ability to access funds when it relates to service delivery. Um and again the case example was uh when we saw a issue of need for for lighting um we saw the administration be able to move a million dollars to meet that core service delivery and our financial policies essentially allows the administration access to those dollars when core delivery services are experiencing gaps and there is a need for moving of funding. Um and we've seen them utilize that even just this past year alone. So this idea that we would just be going without core services. We have financial policies that actually prevents those things from happening. Um so I at least wanted to offer that context and again I don't think I officially moved this motion for approval. Oh, I did. Okay. Thank you. Well, just making sure. And I did get a second on it. Correct. Awesome. All right. That's it. >> Thank you. And Council Member Chowry. >> Thanks, Chair. Um, I had a question for Director Ston as well. Thank you so much for answering our questions today. Um, I wanted to just uh understand with the current proposal um in the proposed budget before we amend it, the cuts that are made to the snow plowing pilots, what program impacts would happen? What would we lose? What would go away? Yeah, Cher Tuckai, uh, Council Member Chowry, uh, what we found last year in that first year was that the first full year of the the pilot was that these grants to the neighborhood organizations were highly effective. So, we proposed to expand those and learn to make sure that we're they continue to be effective. One year, especially with limited snow, is not maybe it doesn't give us extreme confidence about like what things will look like moving forward. So the proposal was to really just focus then on expanding the grants to neighborhood organizations along with continuing to provide through a snow coordinator position assistance for renters who are having trouble with the property owners who might not be clearing the snow connecting people with contract services or connecting individuals with their neighborhood organizations. So providing that like communications and outreach resource because a lot of people just don't know that say their neighborhood org is helping or that there's a snow angel program even outside of those neighborhood organizations who are receiving grants where it connects neighbors with neighbors. So that communications resource is really important along with managing those grants. So, but the short answer is we just this year the proposal was to focus on expanding the neighborhood grant program because we found it so successful and not doing the rest the snow ambassadors or the other city staffed work of snow and sidewalk clearing. >> Okay. So, the proposal would cut those portions of it. Okay. Got it. That's helpful to understand. Um that's that's my only question. I think for me uh the the thing that feels really important is the fact that like we did not get a chance to execute a a successful full pilot without one like the impacts of a snow season and then also doing this for the next 2 years. I will say um I have had constituents reach out to me um that live outside of uh that live outside of the pedestrian priority network that live within the pedestrian priority network that routinely reach out about real life impacts that happen when they get snowed in and they're not able to shovel. And these are usually my constituents with disabilities who rely on their sidewalks, also sidewalks being cleared to get to transit, all these different things. So, they essentially get snowed in and that's a real life emergency for them. And I am in constant conversations. I would say that we have like four emergent snow conversations that have just come up with the latest snowfall. Um, so I would like I would of course like to see the neighborhood organization program expand. I got a request from the Sandish Ericson neighborhood organization to see if they could do a program like this cuz they saw Whittier Alliance post about it. But there's only so much neighborhood organizations can do. Um, and so kind of seeing out what are the best tools for the next few years, especially this year because we're expecting a polar vortex, uh, which means snow. Um, and it's snowing today. So, I'll be supporting this amendment. >> Thank you. I will next recognize Council or Vice Chair Kusky. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, director. I just would like to clarify what is the total that's currently in the budget then for [clears throat] the grants program for neighborhood organizations. >> Oh, it is approximately $100,000 >> and is that so $100,000 and is that what was utilized last year or is that what was >> I'm sorry. Um yeah, chair, vice chair Kosski. Um it's uh we used less than that last year. Um and that was because of the grants. We didn't have we weren't uh issuing as many grants last year. And so this is actually an increase I believe of what was spent last year to focus on expanding that work um for the neighborhood association grants. >> Okay. So, we have currently, without making any amendments, we have $100,000 in the budget for the neighborhood organization grants program portion of the pilots. >> It's approximately I think it's between 75 and $100,000. >> Okay. And then the this might be a question to you or possibly to the author. You I my understanding is that this amendment is an additional almost $600,000 but for all three of the pilots. So, it was an an increase to even that amount in the grant to the grant neighborhood program as well. Is that what your intention was? From >> my understanding, this is also inclusive. So, cuz it was always the full amount. This was the original appropriation based off of public works numbers, the 595. So, this is inclusive of their numbers and I'm assuming the absorption of what they've allocated. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um I am not seeing anyone else in quue. Um so I will ask the clerk to call the role on amendment number seven. Sorry. [snorts] Amendment number five. Sidewalk plowing pilots misspoke. >> Wish five. >> Council member Payne. >> I. >> Wsley. >> I. >> Rainville. >> No. >> Vita. >> No. >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman. I >> Jenkins. >> Nay >> Chavez. >> I >> Chowry. >> I >> Palmisano. >> No. >> Vice Chair Kausski. >> I chair Chubtai. >> I. >> That is eight eyes and four nazs. That motion carries. We will next move to amendment number amendment number six. This is a revised amendment as well in yellow. Um it is the franchise fees allocation presented by offered by council member Kman. I will recognize her for um for presenting this amendment and making a motion. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment earmarks the estimated $4 million that we will receive if the franchise fee ordinances pass next Thursday. And [snorts] the uh language is written with a contingency for that. And the reason that I decided to craft this and earmark that money towards weatherization and retrofitting is exactly because of the comments we've been receiving from the public. and 60 plus people came to our public hearing on those ordinances and talked about how important it is that we increase the amount of money that we have to deliver weatherization and retrofitting projects for our communities, especially the lower inome communities who live in EJ neighborhoods and live within the north side and southside green zones. These programs have a huge return on investment and um are a really important way for us to address one of our top goals in our climate equity plan, which is reducing energy burden. And so the the amendment that you see before you is to allocate that new money that comes in through the franchise fees for the programs that will directly lower energy costs for energy burdened neighbors in our city. And the amount that comes in is not uh precise. We can't predict exactly how much money will come in, but we've done our best to estimate that and incorporate the fact that the um date of implementation will be April 1st for those ordinances. The new franchise fee ordinances are expected to bring in 5 million per year, but because they won't go into effect until April, we prated it, brought it down to $4 million, and then we also lowered it to incorporate council member Vita's amendment for energy assistance. And I will move approval of this amendment. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Um, we have a proper motion on franchise fees allocation. Is there any discussion from colleagues? I will recognize council member Jenkins followed by council member Palmyano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I guess my concern with with this and certainly we we need to continue to try to address um cost burden households with utility costs. Um but it just feels like we're not really these programs aren't going to those lowincome homes. Um it it's been really a challenge to get those projects done. So I you know why continue to spend more money until we figure out how we can make sure that we're addressing green zones on the north side and the south side and really ensuring that those projects are being funded. >> Thank you. comment. >> Gotcha. Um, next I'll recognize council member Paul Misano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, I sit with those comments from council member Jenkins. Um, but mostly per some prior comments. I'd like to point out that there are eight goals of the climate legacy initiative. Energy efficiency is one of them. The other seven are carbon neutrality, emissions reduction, green jobs and training, community investment, clean energy, trees, and sust sustainable infrastructure. [snorts] We don't get to, as council members, go backwards and say there's just one um or that we're only going to focus on one that we like. We need to protect the goals of the program, all of them, to make meaningful progress here. Council member Vita's amendment prior went directly to whom is getting impacted by increased franchise fees the most. She she's [snorts] her amendment was about how to refund or help those who are impacted the most by rising energy costs. That was a good amendment from my perspective. This one does go toward one of the goals. This isn't about whether or not we are um passing an increased fan franchise fee. It's about once we do um how we will program it. So I am receptive to those who've been speaking up about it. And I am inclined to program it and make more progress in this area. But here's what's important to me to support it. Can you confirm for me that this earmark is going to the program itself to the function of weatherization and not to any specific contractor or vendor or community group? And this is a question I think to the author. Madam chair, happy to answer this question and first wanted to clarify that weatherizing and retrofitting homes addresses almost every single one of the climate goals that you listed including reducing greenhouse gases, supporting our workforce, etc. Um, and then you'll see in the amendment that this earmark would specifically fund the following programs within the green cauter umbrella. Healthy homes weatherization program, Centerpoint Hero Program, and City Bonus Rebates: Cooperative Energy Futures, Centerpoint Lowincome Rental Program, plus city rebates through Frontier Energy, multif family building efficiency program, and the city's green cost share program that is 4D affordable housing focused. So, our city staff have done a really great job in the last couple of years creating an umbrella to make these programs as effective as possible so that anyone who applies can find the pathway that best suits their home and their building and their neighborhood's needs. Thank you for answering the question. I was concerned that there were several vendors and groups specifically listed in the supporting materials and we were going to be limiting it to those groups. So, I just want to be clear here. Our expert city staff, as you mentioned, are the ones who should be determining which programs within Green Cross Share are prioritized for extra funding and assigning contracts and work through their vetted RFPs, not us directing who specifically will get funding. Um my second or last question is um is is either for you because you've been deeply involved in this work and I appreciate it or perhaps director Hanlin um with increased funds is it likely that we will need to bring on additional vendors to do this kind of work? This is a large amount of money in a short amount of time. >> I would um ask that Deputy Commissioner Hanland come in to answer that question. >> Thank you and welcome Director Hanland. Chair Chucktai, council members. Um the I just want to clarify that the some of the names that were mentioned in this amendment came from a memo that we had sent back of existing contractors and partners that we work with to get this this money out. Um I would say in bringing on a a fund of this amount um we would be scaling up the contracts with those vendors but we it's it would be a lot of uh program dollars to get out the doors. So we would also be open to working with new partners uh to to address especially in areas of the north side green zone, southside green zones and with low-income members. >> Thank you. This is really helpful context. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Next, I will recognize Vice Chair Kosski. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Deputy Commissioner Hanland. Sorry, come on back. Um, I I I did hear uh Council Member Jenkins uh comments just about, you know, who was being serviced and I know that you gave a presentation and not all of us are in some of the committees and so I'm wondering if you could just lay out for us like what these programs and who has been. Um, I know you had some concerns maybe of perhaps we weren't targeting in our green zones and I'm just wondering if you could speak to that because I know you guys presented some very specific um numbers for that and want to make sure that that's clear for the public. >> Sure. Sher Chug Tai, Council Member Ksky, Council Member Jenkins. Um the So there was a letter that went out from our commissioner, Commissioner Chaplan just talking about some of the um complexity around this. There are many different uh EJ environmental justice tools that are out there. One from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. We have our green zones. There are uh Met Council areas of uh concentrated poverty. Um and so there are different ways to look at some of this data and I think that's where some of the confusion uh around this comes from. Uh the climate legacy initiative currently uses green zones as a priority. North side green zone, southside green zone and uh low-income properties and any uh organization that is serving uh people in low-income situations. And so about 60% of the funding goes to those uh what we are currently calling our umbrella justice category. So about 60% of the funds go into those categories as we're currently set up. uh our our uh director of climate equity action is currently working with our uh enterprise uh partners and also with external partners through our climate legacy roundt to have uh further really intentional discussions around this in in how we are defining uh environmental justice investments but currently as the program is set up it's around 60% of the funds go to that definition. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Who next I will recognize council member Osman. >> I'll speak quick. I I I I I support this and I had the privilege of attending some of the community engagement. Some of these organizations did to explain what's what's happening and uh this organization is are from the community. They speak community language. They explain it uh better. Um, and just uh with uh uh director that just spoke, Helen, uh I had the opportunity to just be there and it was just really uh a great information. I encourage any every every any council member to invite those uh community uh organizations that are doing uh wonderful work um and weatherizing and helping low-inccome families. Thank you. >> Thank you. With that, I'm not seeing any further discussion. So, I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. >> Rainville, >> I. Vita >> I >> Osman >> I >> Cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> I >> Tosano >> I >> vice chair Kausski >> I chair Chugai >> I that is 12 eyes's that motion carries we will now move to [clears throat] excuse me we will now move to amendment number seven um After we started this meeting, um we have the clerks bring by a an amended version of this this document. Um so your binder will have a white sheet whereas uh the one we are we are going to be looking at is the is the yellow one. This amendment um is related to traffic safety for all. It is offered by council member Wanley. I will recognize council member Wansley to introduce her amendment and make a motion. Thank you. Uh CBP checkai. Uh so the neighborhood traffic calming program which this amendment um makes appropriations to continues to be a popular program and has been widely acclaimed by residents to help improve safety conditions among city streets. And we also have be been made aware time and time again that its current funding levels is unable to meet the demand of this program. Um last year in response to a legislative director by council public work shared that it would be an estimated $15 million cost to address all the potential projects just for 2025 alone. And fully completing eligible projects has been a multi-year effort by council. and this additional uh funding will help continue that work. Uh the city has over 16,000 sidewalk corners, many of which have not been uh reconstructed. So, they are deficient with respect to current ADA design standards. Uh this amendment will put $2.3 million of investments into ADA accessibility and will fund the systemic replacement of around 100 deficient pedestrian ramps per year. Uh there is also a modest increase to the protected bikeways program by a one-time allocation of $700,000 and then a onetime increase of $2.5 million for traffic safety improvements which will improve the overall uh traffic safety uh for our city's roadways. These categories were selected based on need as well as um based on conversations with click members as well. Um, I sourced the funding for this uh proposed amendment um from the public sea safety wellness and training center which has uh allocated about $5.5 million um in the proposed mayor's budget. Um I will start off by saying simply that this body should not approve this project because the administration chose to commit the city to a $24 million building before getting council approval and funding. Uh the administration incorporating this project into the settlement agreement was a overreach, an attempt to bypass our budget authority as council members. And the administration has cited the settlement agreement as requiring the need for this facility and that is just simply not factual. There was no requirement in the settlement agreement for a wellness and training center like the capital request implies in its proposal. The settlement agreement that council voted for required the completion of a facility assessment and that has been done. The administration chose to make operational decisions and incorporate them into the agreement with Alifa without going through the city's proper channels and processes to ensure that what they were submitting to Alifa was actually accurate information and did get council approval. And we should not commit a 20 or commit to a $24 million building to help the administration essentially save face. they should take accountability and work through the correct process on this as well as on other settlement uh programs that they're trying to negotiate with AIFA uh to advance compliance with the settlement agreement. But that does not mean the council is a rubber stamp um on those initiatives when they want to bypass those processes and this is a time to ensure that that those processes are being enforced um even outside of improper process by the administration. I do not think this or at this time this funding is appropriate. This summer, council approved over a $1 million contract for wellness services for our MPD officers. Wellness and training will also be uh incorporated into all the future community safety centers. And this was stated and included in the public safety facilities presentation by the office of community safety in response to a a legislative directive that council passed just last year. the training site that currently is being rented at an MPS facility that is being being proposed as a site again does not require us to purchase a whole new facility. Um, according to the city's own MPD facility assessment, there are several additional ways to meet the training spaces requirement of the settlement agreement such as utilizing cross jur jurisdictional partnerships and agreements. MPD actually already does this with some of their other operational needs. So there is no reason why the training center could not be also another opportunity to work and share the costs with other law enforcement agencies who already um have resources in place to fulfill training needs. Uh the administration has the opportunity to come back to council next year with a better fleshed out proposal and plan for this body to consider. But for now, this is a large investment with too many unanswered questions that currently sidesteps the council's budget processes. And in light of that, these dollars are better invested in things that we do know will have a measurable benefit for the public, like making investments into our traffic uh calming program that will ensure dozens more projects will be completed in 2026. So, with that, um, I will, uh, motion this, um, amendment for approval and ask for a second. >> Council member Wanssley has moved approval on traffic safety for all. Is there a second? >> Um, we have a proper motion before us. Colleagues, are there any questions or discussion? I will recognize Council Member Rainbow. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm I'm wondering this is uh uh a very strong statement by council member and I'm wondering if someone from the administration come up perhaps is Jared here I can't see with the pillar to just talk could you just address uh uh how the settlement agreement impacts this amendment or vice versa and then um I do have one other question after that thank you >> uh Mr. Jeff, if you will first begin by introducing yourself. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair Shug Tai, Council Member Rainville. I am Jared Jeff. I'm the deputy commissioner of community safety for the city of Minneapolis. U council member Rain will answer your question. Uh the MDHR settlement agreement requires a training assessment, a facilities assessment, several other assessments that had were completed between 2023 and uh 2024. Um, there were several facilities assessments that were done that said our current facility for MPD training, the SOCK, the strategic operations center, was insufficient to meet our training needs for what a modern police agency really needs to have. >> And if I can just stop you there. So, for the public, the sock is that uh old elementary school that's been retrofitted, correct? Uh, for this need. Okay. >> Correct. That the city currently uh leases or rents. Um, in addition to just the facilities assessments that we had to complete, um, and gave recommendations to the city, the both the MDHR set agreement and the consent decree provisions that we agreed to with the previous Department of Justice all have extensive training and wellness requirements that um, really put a significant onus on the city to provide these resources to our officers and to our staff. um they I mean it's hundreds of hours of training um it is significant wellness resources above what we supply to them right now um and I mean inherent in that we have to provide space for these resources and training to actually occur. Um, as far as what is in the settlement agreement and um, kind of how it was uh, how we got there, I would defer to the city attorney's office on really what that means and the weight of that. But um, I I can I'm happy to answer further questions on it though, too. >> Well, I I don't know if you could answer this or perhaps the city attorney, but does this sidestep the uh, council agenda? >> Madam city attorney, go ahead. >> Yeah. um uh uh council vice president, council members. So, let me kind of just walk back a little bit and explain what the settlement agreement requires. So, the settlement agreement required uh us to do both a training assessment and a facilities assessment. uh in as as uh deputy commissioner uh identified both of those assessments actually found serious deficiencies with the existing facility and the facilities assessment recommended that a new training facility be created. Um the settlement agreement also requires us to provide a facilities plan which had to be approved by Alifa. So we created that facilities plan with the recommendation that a new facility be brought. Now Alifa approved that but of course the next step in the process then is to go to click which happened and then to come to the city council for ultimate budget approval. Um so I would argue we did not do a wrong process here. We we followed the process. It wouldn't make sense to have a proposal come to the city council for budgetary authority that Alifa didn't approve. Right? I mean, this is part of this is we present something to Alifa, they say yes, this would satisfy the terms of the agreement. If they say no, then we're not going to waste your time. They say yes, then we come to you for budgetary authority, which is why this was in the mayor's budget. Um, if the council were to not uh uh do the appropriation um and not allow for us to go forward with uh with this new construction, then we would have to go back to Alifa, come up with a different proposal that would try to satisfy the requirements for again wellness and training that are all in the settlement agreement and see if Alifa would approve something else. um given the deficiencies and given all of the requirements for again uh scenario-based training, all of these wellness requirements, um I don't know whether Alifa would find some other option to um to to satisfy the requirements in the settlement agreement. I don't if that answers your question. >> It does. Thank you. Would you like to add anything, Mr. Jeff? I I'll just say um the the need for this I know the question was posed in regards to the settlement agreement. Um there are needs beyond just the police department that are being unmet as far as wellness and training needs. That goes for our fire department, for our 911 department. Um all virtually all of our community safety departments um have needs when it comes to space for training and wellness that we we currently aren't are unable to meet. >> Okay. Thank you. So, I'm I'm going to be voting no on this. Uh we all want our police department to improve as well as the continued uh effort for all of public safety. The um and we saw how good the training uh should be can be with the Annunciation shooting. Within 4 minutes of the call, we had 911 responders on. Within 14 minutes, we had those children, those horribly injured children on their way to hospitals to to get fixed. And I can't imagine what it's like for a firefighter or a 911 operator or a police officer to be involved with that in the after effects for their mental wellness. So I think we should stick to the course, listen to Alifa and continue with the uh improved training for our police department. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we've got the clerk. I just was asking if council member Wanley could restate her motion for clarity. We have one that was printed as the revised copy, but then we were noted by your staff there might be a change. So, I want to make sure we captured it correctly. >> The change was captured in the revised motion. So, I'm moving approval of the revised one. >> But in the revised motion that we passed out, it says on the first item that it's 700,000 and your staff tells us it's 720,000. So make sure that we have that correctly. >> Thank you. Sorry, there was a typo. >> So that's that's the motion. >> 720. Okay. Thank you. >> 720. Thank you. Wonderful. Um, okay. With that, next we're going to move to Council Member Vita, followed by Council Member Wanley. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, so I I don't think I have a question yet, but just a few comments. Um, the training facility is in Ward 4. It's at a very old school in a residential neighborhood, like literally across the street from people's homes. And I get lots of complaints from the people, not about police, but noise complaints. um the usage of some things like I mean mostly it's noise complaints, it's congested traffic because there's a lot of vehicles over there. Uh those sorts of things. And I would say like what I hear from people the most is they want officers to be trained well. Like people see that and that that as an opportunity for us to have a better police department and and I think officer wellness just goes right along with that. And I know like wellness for me does matter. Facilities does matter. I feel good when I go to my house and it's spotless clean or it's it it's being used in the way that I need it the most or you know. So I I really do think that um we have to look at this as an opportunity to make our department better and not as like uh a bad thing. This is an investment in a department that we want to be better. A part of that is facilities. A part of that is training. Some of the conversations I've had, you know, the fourth precinct has um the range there and there's been conversations about if the range will move to this training facility and out of the fourth precinct and if the fourth precinct actual building will be given back to community because it was a community center back in the day. So, there's just been a lot of conversations um in North Minneapolis about a better training facility for the police department. Um and and that does not include uh this old school on um 42nd and Bryant, I think, is is where it is. And and if you've ever been there, you can see that it's outdated and that the facility definitely um it doesn't fit the needs for policing right now. And it definitely doesn't fit the needs for neighbors who live across the street and um people who are just in the community and um want to see something different in that in that space in that park space in in that area altogether. >> Thank you. Next we've got uh actually I'm going to pause here just really quick. Um, finance just has caught a minor error with that with that revision. So, I'm going to invite director Denza up and just walk through the the importance of getting a balanced item and how the amendment before us as it is written is balanced and correct and no further changes are needed on it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair Chugai. Yes, the uh revision that we just heard about would throw this off balance. So we need to make sure that if we're cutting 5 1.5 million from one project, the addition amount is 5 a 1.5. So 700k plus 2.5 million plus 2.3 million will balance but 770 will not. So actually uh Michael Michael can you just pull the the one that you are dropping off right now? You take that one back because what director descend is describing is that is incorrect and not balanced. For clarity, Madame Chair, what we read into the record was for line item one BIK28 project, we were told that's 720,000. The second item, TTRO22 is 2.5 million and 3 PV 104 is 2.3 million. >> Okay, >> give us just one second. Yeah, >> 700 is correct. >> It should It should just be 700 even. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Yes. So, take this one back that you dropped off. It should be 700 even. Wonderful. Thank you, director. Thank you, Michael. Um, all right. We're going to return back to the queue. I know there's plenty of discussion that is still left um on this item. Um, so for clarity, for clarity, the motion is red decreasing the entire budget that is allocated for 2026 for the public safety wellness center by 500 $5.5 million. And then taking that $5.5 million and redistributing it among three other existing capital programs. Protected bikeways gets a $700,000 increase. Traffic safety improvement supplemental, that is where neighborhood traffic calming is now going to live, is $2.5 million. ADA ramp replacement program supplemental gets 2.3 million which adds up to exactly $5.5 million. We're going to return to discussion. Council member Osman followed by council member Paulano. >> Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. Did you Did we skip over you? >> No, you I had something else I want >> I will have you get back in queue. >> Okay. >> Uh thank you so much. And this is this question is for for for the staff or anyone who can answer. I'm trying to I'm I'm learning as we go. This uh training facility that's coming up that that that we're projecting to build, how much is it going to cost? Does anybody know what this training facility going to cost? How many millions of dollars is that going to come? through the chair, council member Osman. Currently in the in the budget for the capital improvement budget, we have 5 a.5 million slated for 2026 and then 8 million in 27, 8 million in 2028. So those the three years of funding that are proposed >> and when will this uh plan to get built? What year is it going to try and get built? >> Yes, Chair Shagtai, Council Member Osman. Um, so just one quick thing before I go into the timeline. Um, so we'll know I'll note that this was on the city's um, state capital projects list and was at the top. Um, we asked in our application to the state for$19 million. Okay. [snorts] >> And so as part of that request process, that 199 million is actually half of the the total anticipated cost. So the total anticipated cost would be 38 million with us requesting $19 million from the state. And so what I don't know I can't remember if director Denza's um sums add up to that but that's the most recent uh calculations. the um to answer your question about timeline, I think this is a project that the administration would like to move as quickly as possible on because of all of the significant training and wellness needs in the Selman agreement and in the consent decree and all the needs I covered for all of our departments. So what we have talked about is uh site acquisition having a site under control in probably early 2026 um and then uh actually starting the design process in 2026 with the goal of start building end of 2026 beginning of 2027. >> Okay. Well, we kind of know the process of looking for a space for uh third precinct and new location. That that took long time and and and and the investment and the time of staff. Uh I we are getting we are renewing our third pre our precincts. I think the first precinct and the third precinct is would that is that an option or a way to have a wellness or training center while we build those uh for example third precinct wouldn't that wouldn't that be smart to I know I know each each precinct has some kind of wellness where lockers people can go to gym stuff like that this is not that this center is going to be a place where everyone every professional firefighters and everyone can go to get trained. Um, I'm just trying to see if there's a way to include the new third precinct that's coming up, a training facility or or the new building downtown, a training facility or something similar to that. Is has that been discussed? >> Councilman Rosman, thank you for your question. Uh, yes, it has been discussed. So, in regard to the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center, the design for that building has been completed. That RFP for the general contractor is out. We will be bringing forward to council um near the beginning of next year. The approval for that general contractor contract for the third precinct for South Minneapolis Community Safety Center. Um and during that, you'll all receive more information about the design of that facility. um that facility really has always been intended, at least as we've talked about as a city, to be um more of an operational center where community can come in and out. And so from a purpose standpoint, it just doesn't align super well with kind of what we we we we would like to see from a training and wellness facility. Um, I also want to note too, the city has been already knowing that we were needing to build a new site, a new location for a training wellness center as recommended by our assessments. We've been looking at property and we are very hopeful that we'll be able to bring something to you as council um early in 2026 for actual acquisition of the site. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Uh I'm just going to state my opinion. I think this this are wonderful programs but also at the same time we do need to set our officers or our professional uh people that are you know first respon responders uh should be able to have a place uh that is welcoming that is uh give them the opportunity to to train to uh be able to um you know be the best of the best and uh that will take of course a lot of investment from the state, a lot of work uh and a lot of investment within the city. So not sure when this facility will be available but um [clears throat] I cannot support this um um this motion um because the looking forward I think we are making a smart decision building this public uh safety and training center uh that we're projecting to come up uh next few years. uh we just have to we just have to set our professionals uh to have a facility and I look forward supporting that in the future too. Thank you. >> Um next I will recognize council member Paulisano followed by Council Member Kman. >> Madame Chair, I get behind the concept of many of these amendments and what my colleagues would like to do. Um [clears throat] but it will be no surprise to you that I object to the funding source of many of them. [snorts] uh large cuts or appropriations within MPD or their needed facilities for unrelated projects or initiatives are a total non-starter for me. That said, I am so floored and frustrated by this amendment that I'm not quite sure where to start, but I come promise to keep track of my time. Um we know that our strategic operations center, our current training center is deficient, and this was confirmed by a mandated facilities assessment. I have been actively working toward a new training and wellness center for years. I was finally successful in at least getting this into the CIP in 2019, 6 years ago. And I think before that, we got it on our IGR agenda for state funding potential and for state partnerships in this work. That is a long-standing need that predates the MDHR settlement agreement and any talk of a consent decree. This has been a defining priority of my career on the council. So, come talk to me about it when you want to remove it. This action will result in massive delays to compliance for the settlement agreement and any consent decree. Site acquisition, design, bonding, legislative support take a long time, and the initial steps of this project I put in place a long time ago. Sending this back to the drawing board will lead to multi-year delays, meaning we'll be out of compliance with the settlement agreement timelines. We had started off on a path to get all of those things done and fast and make these important changes in our police department in record time. We will never get out of it is my presumption if we start going down this kind of a path. Our police officers train in inadequate facilities. They were highlighted at length in the settlement agreement mandated facilities assessment. They also lack necessary infrastructure to provide required new trainings that we have a lot of them. Denying them those spaces is a failure of our own work. In the author's analysis, council member Wanley states there should be a thoughtful study and plan for how all MPD related capital projects interface together and the safe and thriving communities report. Staff created that plan. They presented it to MDHR and Alifa who both approved it. OCF staff presented the plan for all of their public safety related capital projects at the September 22nd committee of the whole meeting in response to a legislative directive authored by council member Wanssley. Staff [snorts] incorporated several criteria into their design elements. I'll quote from their presentation. These operational priorities focus on how the city manages and implements projects to ensure they align with the values of racial equity, community safety, sustainability, and community engagement outlined in the safe and thriving communities plan, the strategic racial and equity action plan, the climate equity plan, and the 2040 comprehensive plan. They aim to guide departmental processes, staffing strategies, and work practices to better reflect community needs, foster trust, and promote equitable outcomes across all neighborhoods and populations. The author also notes that the settlement agreement itself does not call for a new facility and that MDHR did not spell that out in the agreement. She's correct. But the facilities plan that was approved by AIFA was also approved by MDHR, who are the partners at the table for this work. In all respects, this project proposal did follow the standard click process. Contrary to the author's notes, the author states throughout her proposed cut that city channels were not followed, and that's simply not true. Our independent evaluator approved this plan, which included MDHR feedback. It was part of a public presentation to council. It was included in the mayor's proposed budget. Contrary to the author's claims, this did go through the click process. Lastly, we recently approved our state capital investment bill resolution, which not only includes this facility, but ranks it first of our priorities. That request is reliant on a financial commitment from the city to move this project forward. I've known that and worked on that for six years. This amendment would require the city to reduce its bonding ask. The city needs to demonstrate that it is committing half of the cost of this project. I'll stop here. Next up, I will recognize council member Kman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really need to understand a little bit more what happened with the click review of this project because I see the clicks report that says that they needed more scoping and information regarding this project in order to include it in their recommendation. And when click came before budget committee months ago, it was not in their list of projects, but then it was added into the mayor's budget after the fact. And I'm wondering if budget director Jane Denza or someone else who staffs the click can speak to the click specifically which is a tier one advisory body if I'm correct and is appointed to do the work of tier 2 advisory body to the city is appointed to do the work of reviewing capital requests and spends hundreds of hours doing that every year. Uh what they had to say about this request and how they analyzed it. >> Sure. through the chair. Um, council member Cashman Click did review this project um and added a comment on page 12 of their report. I'm happy to read it. Um, I think it's important to note that click's purview is to comment on infrastructure projects. They are not lawyers or policy experts on on what the requirements of the settlement agreement are. But I think it's safe to say that their report um in their comment they state that neither the underlying settlement agreement nor the facilities condition assessment explicitly address how a new wellness center will contribute to reducing police misconduct. So that was the nature of their disagreement. Um, and the mayor in his recommended budget had to add this back in because of the uh legal requirements as interpreted by our city attorney. Okay, I'm hearing some I I understand that and I understand the click process here and now I think I'm grappling with the differences in legal opinion around what's included in the settlement agreement versus what Alifa says and what Alifa approved. And I think that there are many wellness and training plans that Alifa could approve. This isn't the only one that they would approve, including a more decentralized wellness and training proposal to have distributed facilities throughout the city instead of one centralized expensive new facility. And I'm wondering if the city attorney would could speak to whether Alifa would approve such a a new plan. Um, uh, council vice president, council members, I I don't know what a leaf will do. What I do know is that we had a facilities assessment done by an expert which was required by the settlement agreement. That expert recommended that we proceed with a new facility. So that is what we presented to Alifa. Alifa approved it with MDHR input as well. Um so we know for sure that if we build this new facility uh it will satisfy the requirements um of the settlement agreement. Whether there is a different option I don't know but I will say that because of all of the underlying requirements in the settlement agreement for wellness facing that requires scenario-based training. Um like one of the things that uh the trainings training assessment actually pointed out is in the current location in a neighborhood doing scenarios would require like pretend takedowns in outdoor locations and that's just not conducive to the current current facility when you're in a neighborhood. Um, so in order to actually fulfill all of those training requirements with again all of the adult learning and all the scenarios, um, we need a facility that's going to be able to handle that. >> I think it's very unlikely, honestly, that Alifa is going to approve some other plan. Do I know? No, I know what they will approve because we've we've already tested that. Um, >> but I I have grave concerns about whether we could actually come into compliance with some other proposal. >> Council member Cashman, can I make a suggestion here? >> Yeah, I have two minutes left. Yeah, I would like to ask you another question as well as the chair. >> Did we This facility totals $19 million. Did we not just get a report that MPD overspent their budget by $19 million this year without authorization from the city? >> Nearly 20, actually. nearly 20. >> I I point that out because we're supposed to be up here doing fiscal responsibility and, you know, making sure that our budgets are aligned with what our policy goals are as a city and making sure that we're appropriating money. I mean, $19 million is a lot of money to spend on a new facility. And I think if they were really serious about wanting the money for that facility, then they should have been careful with the extra 19 to20 million that they overspent this year. Uh, C, Council Member Cashman, can do you want to have the city attorney actually like address why when when when Click was struggling with understanding when Click was struggling with wanting to make a recommendation on this on this item, they wanted more information. Did you work with them? Did you go to them and speak to them about the gravity of of the situation if if it was if it was of such high importance? What? Not if it is of such high importance. Uh, council vice president. Uh, no, I was I was not engaged by click um the the it was presented to click. I do believe that um comm deputy commissioner Jeff though walked them through our our concerns and I did give legal advice to uh deputy commissioner deputy commissioner. Why didn't you engage the city attorney to to come and talk to click? This is like of of such a high gravity. um if you wanted this to be recommended by click. >> Yes, thank you for the question, council vice president. So the um the click has been engaged I think two or three years consistently now and we've tried a few different iterations of presentations on why this is needed. So this year myself and chief O'Hara both went to present walked them through an extensive presentation on this facility and I will be candid in saying we got no questions. So to say that we went through this extensive presentation and then there was no questions it was really confusing for them to say we need more information and there there we not knowing what the more information was. Um, we have talked with the city attorney about in future years for any project related to settlement agreement, uh, there being city attorney office presence there, but I think as far as I see attorney Anderson can probably speak more clearly to what she would say to them, but I think in large part the content would largely be the same of what we we indicated that we are required to do certain things under the settlement agreement. This is needed to be commission agreement. >> Thank you, Deputy Commissioner. her. Council member Cashman's time has now expired. Thank you. Uh next, um I will recognize council member Osman followed by Vice Chair Koski. >> Oh, uh I see you, but we'll we'll go to the next person. Vice Chair Kosski. Thank you, uh Madame Chair. Uh I think this might be for deputy commissioner as well. I would just like to understand a little bit, you know, going through the process of making the decision. I I hear and understand that necessity of having training a new training facility and wellness center. Um I'm just curious to know, you know, what else have we done to think about like the redundancy of that? I mean, I understand that we're under a consent decree. Um, and so we are, you know, highlighting this as a need, but I imagine that other jurisdictions that are really close by are also going to be possibly needing this or want to enhance their facilities. So, I'm just curious, you know, council member Cashion mentioned decentralizing some of that, you know, training facilities or have we talked to other cities that would also want to partner with us where we have one, maybe it's in city, city of Minneapolis or maybe it's in the city of Edina and we utilize their facility or the county. So just curious to understand, you know, when I think about, you know, council Catherine just mentioned the overspending of our police department, but also just in general the constraints of our budget right now. How are we thinking creatively about, you know, we this is a $38 million building today, but my guess is within a few years it'll be far more expensive than that. How can we um reduce these redundancies and be more efficient and effective with our spending? Chair Shug Tai, Vice Chowski, thank you for the question. Uh, yes, we have engaged with neighboring jurisdictions on being able to partner with on on a facility like this. In talking this project through, looking at what the city has right now, especially with Alifa and their technical experts who have decades of police training under their belt. One thing that has been brought up just as we've gone through trainings is how logistically difficult it is having different training components being in different physical locations. So a good example of that right now the firing range is in the fourth precinct. um that has been noted several times. The shuffling of trainees back and forth between there and the sock is really inconvenient, really time uh time consuming and it's really not ideal. As far as a the vision for this facility really is an interdep departmental within our own city enterprise but also interjurisdictional project like we I there is certainly the opportunity to partner with jurisdictions who have similar needs as ours. The I will say one of the major considerations for us is that if there is a a really great site that is within the city of Minneapolis that is not in in a residential area that allows for what we want it to be that is going to be a primary consideration in where we choose. um that is going to be preferred so that we can always have our officers going to one central location that is able to um meet these needs and they're not having to go out to a suburb use time um on duty time to be able to go do that. So that is I I don't want to take up too much of your time, council vice president, but we've we've talked this through with Alifa, with several other jurisdictions. Um, and we believe there's great opportunity here to be able to move forward with this project in a collaborative way, but also one that really fits the needs of the city. >> So the discussions with other cities or jurisdictions, you know, would that look like Minneapolis hosting essentially this and they paying rent because I imagine the training isn't happening 24/7. I mean there's a building that could be utilized for other hours of the day then and so are you saying that you know we're fronting this initial bill and that there would be like a rental process or what how deeply have you thought through this? We uh council vice coun vice chair kowsky I apologize uh we have had conversations internally on how this would work how other facilities of this nature work and they often times do work off of that kind of rent model uh I think with I'm going to give you a little bit of an incomplete answer. It's going to depend on where the facility is. So, if it's within the city of Minneapolis and depending on geographically where within the city of Minneapolis, um what jurisdictional partners are willing to do like that sharing agreement may look different. So, it could be co-ownership, it could be that rent model. It just we haven't been able to obviously specific um have a specific site conversation yet, but once we get to that point, we will be able to work through more concrete details of what a partnership could look like. >> Okay. And are you looking at uh areas outside of Minneapolis for this facility? >> We we have been looking at areas outside as well as inside both. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Council Member Vita followed by Council Member Chowry. We've got five speakers left in queue. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I just just a couple things. Um, you know, Council Member Cashman made the point about the overtime, and I don't think any of us won a 18 or $19 million. I think maybe you even said $20 million in overtime, but I could imagine that some of this is related to poor training facilities. If we're doing training in five different facilities with different technologies with um and and things aren't up to par, getting things in one centralized location makes more sense and will cut some of those costs. I I'm sure of that. Don't know how much, but I can imagine that would happen. Um the other thing [snorts] is so back in September, I think it was in Cal that we had a um presentation from a legislative directive around um the public safety capital projects. And then I'm getting a little confused with the the back and forth around if MDHR and AIFA approve this and like how this process happened. But I thought we were told in that cow meeting that and I don't know who could just confirm this for me. I just want to be be clear on the information that this um that this project went through went through OCS. OCS incorporated the safe and thriving community report and um what came out of that in this and that it had been um given to click that it went through the standard click process is is to my understanding. So if someone could just come and confirm that just so that it is on the record for me that it went through the standard click process that Alifa and MDHR both approved this this plan back in September when we I believe it was September. We had a comm a committee of the whole meeting where there was a legislative directive I think brought forward by council member Wanley. Um uh that said that all of these things had happened and we were at a place where we were moving forward with a a request and um going to have this training facility. Uh um Sher Shagtai, Council Member of Utah, to answer your question about Click and Director Desend can correct me if this is incorrect. Um it was presented to Click. Click did not provide it in its recommendations uh to the mayor. The mayor um put this facility project in his proposed budget for 2025 or for 2026, I'm sorry. Um so yes, it did go through the click process. They didn't include it in the recommendations, but it is in the mayor's proposed budget. the as far as the um process for AIFA um ALIFA did approve our facilities plan which did have us the um proposing that we would build a new training and wellness facility um so they approved and and in the role that MDHR plays uh MDHR consulted provided feedback there which Alifa takes um very much into account in providing their approval or not pro providing their approval. >> Okay. And so with that with having [snorts] um you know went through the process with those entities, it it was still said to us that the safe and thriving commu safe and thriving communities report was incorporated into the design and the infrastructure and other things also. Right. >> That is correct. Council member of Utah, as part of the um in being able to actually look for a a site, um we needed to know what were the fun, what were the functions that we really needed this facility be able to do. And as part of that um that functionality list that we built out, we incorporated the needs, the operational considerations of all of our community safety departments, which is something that the safe and thriving communities report very much recommends. Oh, so it was every department in community safety. All their needs were incorporated through that report. >> Okay. Thank you. I I just I think it's starting to be confusing on what processes things went through, what didn't, who has the authority to do what. There's been a lot of questions around um a lot of comments around who has the authority and doesn't have the authority to do things. And I I really thought we had wrapped this up back in September in the cow meeting when we had the um the legislative directive presented to us on the um the comprehensive plan for all the public safety capital projects. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you. Next, I will recognize council member Chowry, followed by Council Member Palmisano. >> Thank [clears throat] you so much, um Chair Chugai. Um, first I'll just speak to what this is funding. Um, this is one of our budget amendments that really looks at disability justice. Um, the ADA ramp program is extremely important for us to complete. uh and us moving ahead on it and making sure that we complete it means that we can move into the sidewalk accessibility inventory program which has long been an issue for our constituents with varying mobility issues, issues with vision, other disabilities, um where they've had issues on the rightway. And so I really want to lift that up. And this is also an item that we continuously advocate for in our federal legislative agenda. and we advocate for this at the state legislature. So, what we're requesting to fund is a really critical need. Um, and also traffic safety improvements continue to be a top priority of constituents all throughout our offices as has been shared um these last two years in this term that for several council members, they hear from their constituents and for them it is about a life or death experience. And I I just really wanted to make sure to uplift the point about what we are funding here and why that matters. Um in terms of the source, this conversation has been extremely clarifying for me in the sense that usually we have the study sessions and the deeper conversations before we say go ahead on a multi-million dollar budget allocation. And what I feel like we did today for our short period of time in budget in the 11th hour was a study session when we should have had these opportunities together before. And I would encourage council members that are supportive of this item to not just wait for their colleagues to come to them if it is a priority for them to be leaders and conduct conduct a study session, conduct briefings, bring people together. this next calendar year because there are opportunities for this to go before the click again um and to have conversations. And I'll also state we have made a significant move in making this a priority in our legislative agenda even given the circumstances that we did not have a lot of the information that we are receiving today. We said, "Yeah, we will pass this forward and we will make this a top priority on our legislative agenda and we will lobby for it and use our city staff and honestly my time as a IGR chair to lobby for this. I will also share that there is a lot of confusion um or lack of information or questions not only um among click members, not only among council members but also among our legislative delegation. I have received several questions asking what we have asked today. Is this required by MDHR? Is this a part of the settlement agreement? This doesn't feel clear. Is this a direct requirement? And what we have come to understand today that there's a requirement for a facilities assessment and then there is a requirement to improve um wellness and training. But there's no requirement that says you have to within the calendar year uh approve a multi-million dollar project for a wellness facility. What we have to do under the settlement agreement is um provide the the finances necessary to achieve it. And one question that is that has not been answered or even asked is if there are other options that are more financially feasible for the city to take on to uh fulfill the requirements of the settlement agreement. And I also think it's important that this body has a session with Alifa because I do take issue um respectfully with the remark from our attorney that she does not believe that this would be approved by Alifa. That is for Alifa to determine. That's why they're an independent body. That is not for the city of Minneapolis to determine if there's no other plan that's going to be approved. And I felt that that was important to say because I care deeply about the independent nature of our settlement agreement. With that said, uh we have many budget amendments to go forward. I feel like we have had the conversation necessary about the needs of the administration and our shared shared values in fulfilling the settlement agreement, but it just doesn't feel like this is ready for prime time for me. So that's how it's going to determine my vote. So I would like to call the question. >> Council member Chowry has called the question. This this is not a debatable motion. I will ask the clerk to Is there a second? >> Second. >> I'll ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Payne. >> Hi. >> Wonley. >> I. >> Rainville. >> No. >> Vita. >> No. >> Osman. >> Hi. >> Cashman. >> Hi. >> Jenkins. >> Nay. [clears throat] Chavez >> I. >> Chowry >> I. >> Palosano. >> No. >> Vice chair Kausski. >> I. >> Chair Chugai. >> I. That is eight eyes and four nazs. That motion carries. >> No. Yes. Next, we're going to move to the underlying question on the amended motion by Wansley and Chowry for traffic safety for all. Mr. Clerk, please call the role. Or Madam Clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. Rainville, >> no. >> Vita, >> no. Osman, >> no. >> Cashman, >> I >> Jenkins, >> no. >> Chavez, >> I >> Chowry, >> I >> Palosano, >> no. >> Vice Chair Koski, >> I. >> Chair Chugai, >> I. >> There's seven eyes and five nazs. >> That motion carries. colleagues. Um, we are This was a really long discussion. I appreciate it was very informative. Um, so and I'm I'm seeing that people are needing a little bit of a break. So, we're going to recess for exactly 15 minutes, right? So, we're going to come back at 12:22 and um we're going to restart and thank you all. Communications were ready to begin. Welcome back, colleagues. We're ready to continue with the markup packet. Next up, we have amendment number eight presented by council member which is offered by council members Chavez and Osman related to the community connections conference. I will recognize council member Chavez to introduce this item. >> Thank you, Chair Chuck Thai. Initially, the goal was to restore the community connections conference that you all know that the mayor cut in his proposed budget in August. We know that the community connections conference is a really important gathering where a variety of our community members come together and engage with the city enterprise. It is accessible, it is free, and it is important. Uh we were going to restore the funding for the community connections conference, but we also know that it was very highly unlikely that the neighborhood community relations department was preparing for this event next year. and we did not want to set them up uh with unfair expectations of uh making sure that they had to do some lasting planning. So uh I would ask for you all to entertain uh the further resolution and legislative directive because I do not want to come back into the same position next year when we want to restore the community connections conference. So the first thing is a resolution asking us as a city council uh to be supportive of the community connections conference and the second component is basically a legislative directive asking the information to provide us information regarding any future community connections conference and response to the city council resolution expressing statements of position pertaining to the community connections conference. I will say uh that I want to read a little bit about the resolution and why this um why this community connection conference is important. Uh so I'll just read the resolution and we'll go from there. That the city the city council supports reinstating the community connections conference in 2027. Be it further resolved that the city council understands that the community connections conference is a free event that connects residents of Minneapolis community groups, neighborhoods, and local government. Be it further resolved that the city council understands that the community connections conference brings in people who are often unre under underrepresented in local decision-making to meet city leaders in a friendly welcoming space, celebrate successes and connect, learn about new opportunities to get involved and gain new skills and resources. Be it for the resolve that the city council understands that this event brings diverse communities together. In 2023, 942 people attended with 56% of attendings identifying as people of color of those who completed the survey. In 2024, 1,267 people attended with 54% identified as people of color of those who completed the survey. Uh we also strongly encourage the neighborhood and community relations department to include a budget proposal to the mayor that includes the community connections conference in their 2027 2028 budget request. I would like to move both these items for approval and we will not bring bringing a funding resolution for that but we would be supportive of it next year. >> Second. >> Uh we have a proper motion on community connections conference in front of us. I will just uh clarify here um that this is a 0 amendment. The motion and proposal are not being considered. Um the author was amendable to the authors were amendable to um uh getting this uh getting their uh amendment which initially was about uh fully restoring the community connections conference um withdrawn and wanted to make sure that that we are um we are we're uh moving forward with these two um items. this resolution expressing a statement of support for the restoration of the community connections conference um into the future along with a legislative directive requesting um you know the mayor's um the mayor's uh uh reaction to the um to the resolution if it is approved. So, um, with that, I'm going to look to see if colleagues have any questions or comments. I will recognize council member Kashman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am not going to be supporting this resolution today. I [clears throat] think that the community connections conference should evolve and I think that it should be this the way that we interact with community should be done, you know, in more decentralized ways, more innovative ways. And I think that the community connections conference is a lot of effort for just one event. And the amount of money spent towards community connections conference held at the convention center could be better spent actually meeting community where they're at in their own neighborhoods. >> Thank you. Um next I will recognize council member Chavez followed by Council Member Os. >> Thank you uh Chair Chuck. What I'll say in response to that comment is that I believe that we can do both. Our neighborhood and community relations department does deep engagement with our community. And what we also know is that the neighborhood puts a great community connections event that really brings so many people to a location to engage, to learn, to talk with city staff where otherwise it would be very difficult to not be able to do all that incredible work. So the reason we believe in restoring this funding is because we strongly believe that we can do and should be doing both. I know for a fact that this yearly event that I am very sad is not going to be happening next year is one of the locations that I get to see a variety of my constituents from Little Earth uh folks advocating for immigrant justice, neighbors advocating for the rights of people of color in this city. and to not be able to have that opportunity is going to have a detrimental effect in the trust in the engagement that we have with our communities of color in particular. So I would just urge my colleagues to support that. >> Uh next I'll recognize council member Osman. >> Oh thank you so much and and I think like council member Chavez say we can do both. Um this someone who has participated community connections um you know uh this is where community come and they can talk to the small business community. They could talk to the the rental rights. This should be something that accessible to the residents. Do I think it should be moved to location wise? Yes. I think it should be held somewhere where buses have uh where people have access to buses somewhere in the community where there's space enough. We can be creative. Doesn't have to be in convention center. Uh but um I just trying to read it and see why was this uh decision made uh on the mayor's side to you know cut uh uh cut that I think it will affect a lot of people but we were heading to the right direction. I think this was really really important uh experience and I I do want to thank NCR for our staff for really hosting it uh promoting it uh connecting to the residents and I'm hope I'm hopeful that we can restore it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I will recognize Council Member Jenkins/ amendment um to [snorts] I I I just think that this is one of the premier uh community engagement events of the city and I think it gives an opportunity for different neighborhoods to interact with each other and and learn um you know what other neighborhood organizations are doing. Uh clearly it's an opportunity to interact with city staff around a variety of issues. So hopefully um funding can be restored to this um signature event next year. >> Thank you. I'm not seeing anyone else in queue. So with that, I will ask the clerk to call the role. Council member Payne. >> Hi, >> Wanssley. >> I Rainville. >> Hi, >> Vita. >> I >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman. >> No, >> Jenkins. >> I >> Chavez. >> I >> Chowdery. >> I >> Palmosano. >> I >> vice chair Kosski. >> I chair Chugai. >> I There's 11 eyes, one nay. >> [clears throat] >> That motion carries. [laughter] All right. Next, we are going to move to amendment number um nine which is offered by council members Chavez and Wanley related to immigration legal services. Council member Chavez, please present your amendment and make a motion. >> Thank you, Chair Chuck Tai. This amendment is increasing the amount already allocated in the budget that we have all been working hard to [clears throat] increase for the past few years by an additional $121,000 and $418 $418 uh in ongoing funding uh for immigration legal services to Minneapolis residents. I'm proud to author this with council member Wansley. You know, we have seen an increase of federal enforcement, immigration enforcement across the city uh this year and we drafted this amendment initially just to increase it because we had seen a need impacting our immigrant residents and this week has been extra hard for our neighbors. So, I would ask that everybody support this amendment because we know that what we have in our current budget is not even close to the enough of amount of funding that we need to serve our immigrant residents. I am having multiple conversations with a lot of of our immigrant neighbors, our residents that even the amount that we are proposing here today is not enough to meet that need. So, while I will be asking all of you to vote in favor of this amendment today, I do know that we are going to continue to look [clears throat] for more funding as we head on to full count to to the final meeting of this budget adoption on Tuesday. Uh, I'll speak a little bit about why this is really important. We have a lot of our neighbors right now who are being kidnapped by this disgusting federal administration who is literally picking up our neighbors off the streets. We have due process being stripped away from a lot of our immigrant neighbors and we have a federal administration that does not care about our communities. And we know when we have a government that does not care about its people, we have to step up as a city enterprise. And one of those ways and one of the opportunities that we have a city to do so is by increasing our funding for legal services for our immigrant neighbors. And we're bringing this forward today because we have continued to see a need for these services. We know that we do not have enough in our city and even with this increase, there's still not going to be enough. So, I would just ask all my colleagues to support this amendment and also hope you understand that we are still looking for something before the final adoption of the budget because this need has only increased uh this past week. Thank you. >> And you'll move approval. >> We will move approval. Uh, is there a second? >> Second. >> Uh, I'll recognize Council Member Wanssley and then Council Member Osman. >> Thank you, CVP uh Chuck Tai. Um, also thank you to the lead author, Council Member Chavez, um, for working to bring this forward and also acknowledging um, that this is the bare minimum that we can be doing to meet what has become a very clear need amongst our residents, especially our immigrant uh, residents who um, are constantly being terrorized in our communities in light of Trump's most recent um, executive order that has deployed federal agents to target very um specific uh community groups uh within Minneapolis. Um and we already know that many of our residents had already been dealing um with the targeting that you you very much described as people being kidnapped and I I'm part of many groups that are being formed right now. Um and I am just also going to say I'm so proud of Minneapolis residents. um who are showing up and building networks of support and solidarity in real time to figure out how we defend our residents from being kidnapped um by federal agents, many of which don't even identify themselves, who are disregarding, as you highlighted, um due process and feel emboldened to do so. And it's been um both disheartening and um saddening to watch many of my colleagues um these past couple days drive around Minneapolis trying to locate where ICE is um where they're looking to carry out uh their deportation or de detainment operations and to see you all feel questions about people being scared to show up to their ICE appointments um because they're afraid that they're going going to be removed and separated from their families for literally uh while literally following the immigration process that we've set out before them. Um, so I just want to say thank you um to your leadership and I know this is an incredibly um challenging time for our city, for many of our residents, but I am so thankful um to see that our city again is united in making sure that our most vulnerable communities know that they are cared for, that they matter, and this is just one piece that we can do programmatically to also show that their city stands behind them. And we're, as you highlighted, looking for additional resources to bump this up as well. And I I look forward to supporting increased [snorts] funding in this effort and all the things that we do to make sure our immigrant residents know that um they have a place here. And we are going to defend their their right to exist, to live, to have a quality of life um in spite of what this federal administration does. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Council Member Osman. Um, thank you so much, uh, chair. And it it's been really tough for money members of our community. Um, they're being targeted by what they look like. Our president has called them directly to by name. Um, um, degrading them as less than human. uh calling Somali community um um garbage and all the other horrible woods that he used. So uh we need everyone's uh help and any help we can get. I think the city does did phenomenal job. Uh the press conference with city leaders were amazing. We sent out a clear message. Um [cough] it's tough [clears throat] out there for money US citizen talking about the US citizen. Uh my friends, my resident are being stopped on the streets right now being asked documentations. Um I'm carrying my my my green my passport right now as we speak. So, um, no one is safe. [snorts] And this is when we need, um, other communities that are non East African, non-Latino, American citizen, our fellow citizens in in Minneapolis to stand up with us in Minnesota. And, [clears throat] you know, history history will write this, you know, um, targeting one group of people. just don't be silent. Um, don't be silent. Say something, help out, reach out to the neighbors. I've been doing everything I can to um help my community and I encourage every city department to do your best to see who you can help and um the office of immigration and uh uh you know uh needs all the help it can get. Um there's plenty of phone calls uh people are sending uh they don't know where to turn for help. Um one of the saddest thing that I got was a random text message from probably a resident who said, "I've been detained. Please help." Um and so many different messages. Um, I don't really want to share all the all the horrible stories that's happening in the community, but but it's real. So, um, [snorts] I do want to say people are hurting. Your fellow residents, fellow neighbors are being targeted. That's just the reality of it. It's not just what you see in in [snorts] the news is that I'm here. I'm right here. Uh, my community, my family, we're all scared of it, what's happening. So, uh, thank you. Thank you. Um, thank you for bringing this forward, council members. Um, I'm not seeing anyone else in quue. Uh, I'm going to ask the clerk to call the role on this item. >> Council member Payne. >> Hi, >> Wanssley. >> Hi, >> Rainville. >> Hi, >> Vita. >> Hi, >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman. >> Hi, >> Jenkins. I >> Chavez. >> I >> Chowry. >> I >> Palmisano. >> I >> vice chair Kosski. >> I >> chair Chucktai. >> I That is 12 eyes. That motion carries. Thank you. Um next we are ready to move to amendment number 11 offered by or amendment number 10 I apologize offered by council president Payne, council member Chavez and council member Osman. This is related to the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs staffing. I will recognize Council President Payne to please um introduce your amendment and make a motion. >> Uh thank you, Vice President Chug Tai. Uh the previous amendment really spoke to the need here and I think uh again whether it is legal services or full-time staff, we are in crisis right now. Um we can always do more. Uh and this is my attempt at trying to fulfill our needs and meet this moment. Uh this is for a full-time staffer to staff up our capacity within the office of immigrant and refugee affairs. Uh I have uh made a really concerted effort this term uh to build a deeper relationship with the Ecuadorian consulate which is hosted in my ward. Um I joined them on a monthly basis to do a resource fair. Uh that was a commitment I made to the ambassador. Uh but even next week is the next time that the city is scheduled to be there. I have um audit committee. So I I can't miss audit committee as the chair. Uh it's going to be era staff that's going to be there uh to to fulfill that commitment. And there's been times when it's just been me. It's just been me and my staff. Uh I'm I'm fortunate to have a little bit of um uh staff capacity when it comes to bilingual uh understanding, but like that that's like childhood level. You know, I went to like a Spanish immersion school. uh I can speak a little bit of Spanish, but like when you have that dedicated committed staff, that's you know what I what's been really great is building an actual relationship with the ambassador and it's it takes that type of full focus of people's time to build the types of relationships that we need to help support our community. And I think that in this moment, I think that's what's been really profound is the the sense of powerlessness as we see the federal government um run through our community kidnapping people. And this idea that there's nothing that we can do is something that I reject. Um and I think that the idea that the city's going to singulararily save us is also not true. What's going to happen is that we're going to keep us safe. Our community is going to keep us safe and we're going to be in partnership with our community to stand up for the dignity of every single resident of Minneapolis regardless of their status. And we want to be in partnership with our community doing that. And that requires deep relationships and that's why there's a real need for full-time staff to be able to give that type of time, energy, and focus. So, um I hope I can earn everyone's support. I'm grateful to my colleagues for co-authoring this amendment and the previous amendment uh that they brought forward because this needs to be an all hands-on deck moment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh and you'll move approval. >> And I move approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Um any further discussion on this item? Not seeing any, I'll ask the clerk to call the role. Council member Payne. >> Hi, >> Wanssley. >> Hi, >> Rainville. >> Hi, >> Vita. >> Hi, >> Osman. >> Hi, >> Cashman. >> Hi, >> Jenkins. >> Hi, >> Chavez. >> I >> Chowry, >> I >> Palmisano. >> I, >> Vice Chair Kausski, >> I, >> Chair Chuck Tai, >> I. >> That is 12 eyes. >> That motion carries. Uh next we are moving to uh the next two amendments are revised um versions. So these revisions were uh a a product of discussions with the administration. Um since they are both this is about speak related to speak Minneapolis and cultural media as they're both related to the communications department and um these these items have been discussed uh together. Um, I'm gonna ask that we take up both amendment number 11 and amendment number 12 together. These are offered by council members Chowry, President Payne, and myself. Council member Chowry, will you please present amendment number 11 and 12 and make a motion. >> Thank you so much, Chair Chug Thai. Um I really appreciate uh my the co-authors for joining me in this effort and colleagues. I ask for your support to restore um funding that was proposed to be cut to both speak MLS public access and then also cultural radio. Um speak MLS is our public access media to our community. Uh it it offers opportunities to connect with community members uh throughout the city of Minneapolis from different uh cultural backgrounds, from different economic backgrounds, and also offers creative opportunities for community members to learn how to create medium of their own, to take classes, to have their own podcasts, to share information, and to tell their stories. And I felt it was really important um to bring this forward because in a moment in time where we have seen our federal government make a decision to no longer fund um public broadcast, it's really really pertinent that we continue to keep the minimal funding that we do give to Cultural Media and Speak Minneapolis. Um, this organization, uh, is run by local entrepreneurs with a staff team from our community. And in 2019, uh, when they first received the RFP, they started out with a budget of 472 thou 472,000 a year and has requested since that time for a 3% increase. and that has not been able to be made for varying factors, but it has stayed flat and they have had to find out how to do more with less. Um, consistently this organization has also given their staff cost of living raises as the cost of living has gone up and again being asked to do more with less. Um and they shared an impact statement to this body that said this cut would lead them to um no longer have RISE MLS, a paid internship leadership development program for Minneapolis high school students. Um and that would have a reduction of 10 slots down to seven. um teach MLS, their program that provides free and lowcost CA classes in video production and media literacy. And I think it's important to note that they made that choice because of all of the operational things that they have to do, right? They contract out for their attorneys for the the cost of their attorneys annually is this cut. It's about um 12,000. And so in a moment in time where they're doing more with less, and frankly we should see an increase, I think it's important that we keep this funding. I was proposing an ongoing allocation, but in conversations um uh with council vice president and the administration, uh they've agreed to a one-time allocation with a commitment that in 2027 um we continue to restore the funding. And I would hope to find ways to um increase it so we can continue to not only broaden this um amazing service that we have to reach our communities in a moment where we should have more public service announcements, we should have cultural media and cultural radio in Mong, Somali, Aromo, Spanish um to give people information related to not only opportunities in the community about what they need to know their rights. Um I feel that it's really really important that uh we Sorry I am my blood sugar is so low [laughter] so uh apologies colleagues um >> just pass it down. >> Thank you. Um, all right. I'll just close with this because I'm having my my moment of brain fog. I hope to earn your support. There's a lot of good information within the packet and I also hope that we can support continuing this funding into future years. >> Will you make the motion to approve? >> I'll make the motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Uh, I see a few council members in queue. Um, I'm I'm going to let Council Member Chowry um take care of her needs right now. So, if there are going to be specific questions on this amendment, I'll take them. I'll recognize Council Member Paul Misano, followed by Council Member Vita. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, and these two amendments have been changed to one-time funding. Because of that change, I'm generally supportive of these today, but I still wanted to make a few comments. Um it this earmark of $25,000 between the two is a small amount of the contractual allocation to speak Minneapolis. It still leaves um them with funding of like $460,000. Our comm's team has to absorb a cut in this way. An earmark is a cut. It's a cut to our own city services. Um, this cut is I'm not sure what percentage and maybe the communications department can answer this question. Um, of the communication department's discretionary budgement budget. These are significant when they're paired together. This takes away um an earmark is a cut in this case to the communication department's discretionary budget. Could staff or somebody or or maybe you, Madam Chair, please tell me what those discretionary dollars are currently used for. Is it used for other contractual services that we will have to do less of? >> Um >> I see Adam Fletcher in the audience, but I'm not sure if you've had these discussions. >> We have um and have talked with finance about this quite extensively. So, this this um the the place where these uh these are placed right now um within the contractual services budget for the communications department um is a part of a a $70,000 pot of money that is um used for uh AV replacement and um uh other Mr. Fletcher, why don't you go ahead, please? >> Right. Chair Chugai, members of the council. Um correct. Yes, we have a very limited discretionary budget of $70,000 which pays for I would characterize as sort of the bare minimum um tools and services that we rely on to be a professional communication shop. So, uh, that includes, you know, tools for media contacts, um, social media posting, you know, being able to schedule posting, um, yeah, certain needs in terms of the basic equipment that you use for content creation, uh, as the chair suggested. Um, so yeah, I think in all told the combined 25,000 uh earmark here would be a 26% uh cut from that modest discretionary budget. >> So then, Mr. Fetcher, could you help me understand how do you plan to absorb these two amendments? Will it mean doing less with social media? Will it mean to be continuing to use an outdated tool? Um, how do you plan to absorb that? Well, it will require a choice between either uh impacting that modest discretionary budget or looking at personnel costs. Um if it impacts the discretionary budget, um I think you're correct in that it will um require us to use you know more outdated tools or not, you know, upgrade uh equipment when the need comes if we have uh equipment that um ceases to function, for example, AV or video equipment. um we may need to avoid replacing that or or make do with less equipment. So, yeah, it's it's a it's a meaningful um cost to our operations in terms of getting the city's message out. Um >> yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks for the time. >> Yeah, M Mr. Fetcher, while you're here, just real quick, um I feel like I'm I so the there are several um staff within the communications department that support uh some of the work that we do here. um with our live broadcasting and and council um proceedings. Uh so am I remembering or am I understanding correctly that you you do currently have a vacancy in your department due to like a a promotion type situation. >> We are currently undertaking some reorganization. Um so we have a number of roles that are currently posted. Um number of those roles are uh geared towards internal promotions. They haven't been filled yet. Yeah. >> Um, and we do have one vacancy which is a role that was part of the unification came from regulatory services, a digital communications coordinator which we're working to fill as quickly as possible. >> Gotcha. So, would it be fair to say that that a way that you could absorb this onetime um uh appropriation of um or earmark of of $25,000 is is through some of the vacancy savings that you will likely have because those positions I'd be are almost not certainly not going to be filled by January 1 when you get access to this budget. >> Correct. And the bottom line is we very much appreciate the change to a one-time uh versus ongoing Thank you, Council Member Osman. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. I I do want to ask the item the items that pass 9, 10, and 11, if I can co-author um please. And um I do support uh this item that we're talking about right now. Uh I think cultural media is very very important to support. We [clears throat] have seen um the civil unrest uh I think the the information people have been receiving when they receive a language they understand and and their algorithm let's just say the algorithm like people you know on your social media you're not going to see a different language right but if you are you know Spanish speaking Somali speaking the first thing you see is Spanish speaking Somali speaking so just that that's the world the the way the world works So I think it's it's it's important to uh support these communities and make sure that they are getting the services uh cities providing not just the one channel but multiple channels. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. And council member Ch uh council member Osman I want to make sure that we clarify what you're hoping to co-author because I'm certain that there are some questions in the clerks. So uh you want you would like to uh co-author immigration legal services. That one was Chavez Wanley. Is that correct? >> Right. >> And then you are already a co-author on Office of Immigrant Refugee Affairs staffing, right? And then you want to do do you want to do both of the speak MLS and cultural media? Is that >> That is correct. >> Awesome. Perfect. Correct. Clerks, we've got that. >> Appreciate it. >> Wonderful. Um I'm not seeing anyone else in Q. So uh on amendment number 11 and 12, speak MLS and cultural media programming respect. Oh, I am so sorry. Council member Jenkins. >> Uh, thank [clears throat] you, Council Vice President. I just want to be named as a co-author on um 11 and 12. We've got that. Awesome. Thank you. And all right. So on amendment number 11 and 12, speak MLS and cultural media. Clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. Wanley >> I >> Rainville >> I >> beta >> I >> Osman >> I >> Cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> Palmosano >> I vice cherosski >> I >> Chowry >> council chowry is just in the act. Madam chair, I >> Yep. I see you're walking out. >> Y >> All good. [snorts] >> That count. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> And chair Chuck Tai >> I. That is 12 eyes. Uh thank you. Um or that motion passes. Um, next we are going to move to amendment number 13 which is presented or which is offered by council member Vita related to fourth precinct mobile cameras. Um, and I know there's going to be a series of changes that will that will happen here. So, I'm going to recognize council member Vita to introduce this item um and and make a motion. >> Thank you, chair. Um, this item is uh in response to a really big problem we have in North Minneapolis around dumping. Um, and so I've asked for a couple additional milestone mobile cameras. I'm sure you've all seen them. They're the cameras that kind of get wheeled around in different communities. And so what we noticed in the past year since I um since I've been on the council, I've had probably more dumping complaints than anything. And I don't mean like um somebody dropped a bag of trash. I mean like massive amounts of garbage being dumped in places in North Minneapolis. Uh I'll I'll give an example. I'll give a couple examples. One morning I got a call saying there are 300 tires in my alley. And I was like there is no way this person has 300 tires. This is impossible. But I'm going to go by anyway to see what's happening in this alley. 300 tires. I I didn't count them, but it looked like 300 to me also. So, there's massive amounts of dumping like that. Me and my team had just went by to see um a location that the city had been cleaning up often. And we just rode by and it was completely clean. 10 minutes after we left, I got a call saying 40 mattresses have been dumped on this site. and we go back out and 40 mattresses are dumped on this site. And so dumping is a real issue uh in my ward in North Minneapolis as a whole. There's been a big issue also with um with uh the the dumping for small businesses. When small businesses have dumping on their grounds, they have to pay a price to clean it up. And I get lots of complaints from small businesses who are spending thousands of dollars weekly to have this uh dump and removed. So the goal here is to add two of the milestone cameras. I know a few people have reached out about the cameras not being used in the winter months. So we really will be kind of trying this out to see. But what we've seen success in the last year is um sometimes the cameras are in areas where there may be high crime or particular things that the police are um surveying and then uh we capture these license plates of the people dumping or we capture the people dumping on these cameras. So this isn't a long-term fix by no means. This is a a short-term hopefully uh solution to dumping. I did a legislative directive a couple years ago to figure out some opportunities uh around dumping. We nothing really came of that. It's a it's a issue that I'm going to continue to explore, but for now I really would like to see how we could use these milestone a couple more milestone cameras and figure out if we could curb some of the dumping. >> Thank you. And I understand that you also um were able to work out a more immediate solution with the uh with the administration on this. Um I know they're working on moving a couple of uh I think it's it's the mobile cameras um to to uh the fourth precinct uh immediately. And that's outlined in the in the letter that the mayor um uh uh sent over yesterday um to to make a commitment that he's directing his his um his administration to to make this change. >> Yes, I think I think we've worked out some things with the mayor's the mayor's office has been really helpful. They understand the need. We've been in conversation for four years about this. So, yes. And am I remembering correctly that we have uh are you are you going to withdraw this amendment or is this going to continue? >> No, I'm going to I I plan to withdraw the amendment because I think the letter is sufficient enough for us to move forward with. So, typically they put the cameras away in the winter months and and what they're agreeing to is to um see what we can do with it in the winter basically. >> Wonderful. So, um, council member council member Vita has withdrawn amendment number 13. Um, and we will include the the letter from Mayor Fry on uh, north side illegal dumping around this uh, interim solution, immediate solution we were able to um, work out between council member Vita and the and the mayor's office and the police department. So, um, why we are ready to move to the next amendment, I believe, but we're going to continue to include this in the in the legislative file on on, um, on the budget. All right. Next up, amendment number 14 offered by Council Members Vita and Rainville related to crime prevention specialists. Um I'm going to recognize C council member Vita to present this amendment and make a motion. >> Thank you chair. Um so this amendment is about two crime prevention specialists. One would be in the fourth precinct and the other in the first precinct. I'll speak to the needs for the fourth precinct. The fourth precinct has three wards, ward 7, five, and ward four. And we currently have two crime prevention specialists. They're doing a fantastic job. But there is a great need for a third uh with Binmar being a part of uh who we need for crime pre who uses crimerevention specialists. Also uh crimerevention specialist does a lot of things for us um in in the fourth precinct around um problem properties around the the issue with dumping. Um a lot of things that get reported. We're we're grateful that we get to deploy those issues to crime prevention specialists and not um MPD. It it frees up a lot of time for MPD to work on um other things. And so there is a great need here with us having three wards in our precinct. And I know council member Rainville has some similar but different needs. So I'll let him speak to uh the first precinct. >> And you'll move approval. >> And I'll move approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Wonderful. Next, I will recognize council member Rainville. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh yes. So, uh I've asked to be on this with council member of Utah because the need in the first precinct has grown. Uh whether it's Elliot Park, Luring Park, uh the civilian specialists work so well uh that that will be very helpful in tamping down the crime in those areas. So, I would I would appreciate a vote on this to help out. Thank you. And next, I will recognize Council Member Kman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to ask Commissioner Barnett to come up on this item. My question for you, Commissioner, is if this budget amendment passes, if you will implement it and hire new crime prevention specialists in the first and fourth precincts. Chair. Uh >> if you first begin [clears throat] by introducing yourself. >> Sorry about that. >> Um Todd Barnett, uh Commissioner of Community Safety, um Chair Chuck Tai, uh Council Member, uh Cashman, it would be I intent to uh hire um for these two positions. the the real um limitation is that we normally uh try to um not do it geographically but do it by need. So um I get the idea of putting it in the first and the fourth precinct, don't get me wrong. Um uh the need could be great there. Uh, but I'm just saying that in general where we would deploy additional staff would normally be where their greatest need is. So, >> which precinct has had the largest increase in crime in the last few years? Am I correct in saying that that's the fifth precinct? >> I don't have that number. I'm sorry, chair. Uh, through the chair, I don't have that number right here. Uh, Council Member Cashman, >> we have a lot of data that shows robberies, AR, you know, car related thefts, all sorts of other things have spiked in the fifth precinct. Last budget cycle, we allocated funding to hire a second crimerevention specialist in the fifth precinct, and that person was never hired, and in fact, the hours of the fifth precinct crime prevention specialists were reduced. Can you explain why that decision was made? through the chair, uh, Council Member Cashman. Um, at this time, uh, I know there's been discussions about that. Uh, and the specific details of how that decision was made, I don't remember right now. >> I'm going to need some information on that decision in order to be able to support this amendment. W 7 has precinct 4, precinct one, and precinct 5 in it. Fourth precinct already has two crime prevention specialists. Downtown is the smallest precinct. Fifth precinct, on the other hand, is the precinct that has the highest spikes in crime in the last few years and has the lowest amount of crime prevention specialist resources per capita. Last year, Council Vice President Chuck Tai and I allocated money to hire a second crimerevention specialist in the fifth precinct, responding to the needs of our residents, especially in Uptown, and that budget amendment was not implemented. And I just want to be clear, that was incredibly confusing, continues to be confusing, and as the commissioner, I expect you to have an answer on why that decision was made. It's within your authority to make those decisions >> through the chair, uh, council member Cashman. [clears throat] There are a lot of decisions, uh, that come through my desk. Um, there are a lot of decisions in all five departments. I don't I don't remember every single reason behind those decisions. I'm happy to uh get that information for you. Uh like I said, I just don't right now remember the specifics. >> I would ask for an administrative followup on that question. Chair, >> why don't we have our clerks note that? Thank you very much. >> Anything else, Chair? >> Council member Cashman, do you have any further questions for the commissioner? >> Um no, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council member Vita followed by Council Member Chavez. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, the intent of this is not to, you know, compare where crime is happening more at or not. Like, I get it. The fifth precinct belongs to you, Council Member Cashman, and you get to advocate for whatever you want. What I'm up here doing is advocating for the needs of the fourth precinct. I don't have the crime stats and I don't have the specific crime stats. I don't the the goal of this is to not generate more crime to have the crimerevention specialists intervene before things get worse in the fourth precinct. Brimar is in your ward. You represent them and there is a need. We have two. We need three. It has nothing to do what's happening in the five. What's happening in five? What's happening in one? It's not about that. It's really about what's happening in the fourth precinct. And there is a need. There may be a need for five. I don't know. What I'm trying to do here is get one more crimerevention specialist to help in the three wards that we have. I don't know what happened with you all's amendment um last year and what you did. I do remember that amendment. If that came up in mine, I wouldn't have got to a year later at a budget committee and you know embarrassed staff in front of everybody and start talking about what didn't happen. This feels like something that should have been worked out before you started pitting it against what I'm trying to do here. It's not about one precinct or the other. It really is about the need for what I need in my precinct. I've talked to um council vice president and chair of budget a couple times about this. I really wish you would have said this to me that you all had concerns because this didn't happen the last time. I'm watching you look at the commissioner and like like y'all caught him in some kind of lie or something when you could have said to me this didn't work out for us last year. Council member Vall, is this the direction you want to go in? Maybe there's a different route for this instead of this playing out like this today where we've asked for something. You knew exactly what I asked for. You could have said this isn't this isn't the way to do it because this didn't work out for me and council member Cashman. but instead it was done and then the commissioner's brought up here to like on trial to be caught in a lie or whatever we think is going to play out here. I don't like it. I mean, it really is about getting resources into the fourth precinct that we need. I don't know who needs whatever. I know what I need and I know what I've been asked for and all I'm asking you all to do is support it or not. If you don't support it, you don't support it. But it has nothing to do with what you got or what you didn't get. That's not what I'm asking here. I'm not saying support me because yours worked out or don't support me because yours didn't. I'm saying there's a need in the fourth ward. I don't know the the fourth precinct. I don't know the crime stats for everything. I can't tell you what all the crime prevention specialists responded to. What I do know is they work. They're valuable. That crime is going down in North Minneapolis. And we have crimerevention specialists to thank for that. And so I want to continue to make sure that that's happening. I'm not seeing anyone else in queue. I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Payne. >> Nay. >> Wsley. >> Nay. >> Rainville. >> I bet Vita. >> Hi. >> Osman. >> No. >> Cashman. No >> Jenkins. >> I >> Chavez. >> No. >> Chowry is absent. >> Oh, no. She's here. >> Nay. >> Palmisano. >> I. >> Vice Chair Kausski. >> I chair Tug Chugai. >> Nay. That is five eyes, seven nazs. That motion fails. Next, we will move to amendment number um 15 offered by council members Wansley Kman, President Payne, and Council Member Osman related to restoring the mayor's cuts to civilian investigators. I will this this amendment will include the the standard amendment format and it has an additional resolution that goes along with it. I'm going to recognize uh council member Wansley to please present your amendment and make a motion. >> Thank you CBP Chuck Thai. Last year the [clears throat] council funded five civilian investigators to support MPD and their backlog of cases. This was in response by several council members hearing from their residents that MPD was not following back up with them on those individual cases. Um, as of now, MP does have thousands of unsolved cases, and these include hundreds of open cases for homicides, uh, sex crimes, crimes against children, arson, and other extremely ser serious crimes. Um, and each open case also means a victim in a family that has not received closure, let alone justice. The five civilian investigators will have expanded MPD's capacity as well as maximize staffing resources to help reduce their extensive backlog and ultimately solve cases, which is a shared uh goal of all of us. For unclear reasons, however, MPD uh under the mayor's direction only hired three of those investigators despite the significant need that's been articulated and then also cut those positions uh to lower down the levy. Uh this was a poor decision outright and is significantly counter to MPD's own data as it relates to investigative needs. Um this amendment restores the two positions that the mayor has proposed to cut. And in fact, recently in the public health and safety committee, we received a presentation in response to council member Kashman's uh legislative directive on clearance uh rates uh that basically demonstrated that these positions are deeply needed to meet the great demand around our backlog cases um and to address our pretty low clearance rates. Uh so this proposal also includes if people want to get further into the numbers and things of that nature, you can look at that. But also accompanying this budget amendment is a resolution that requests the administration to terminate the city's contract with Zen City Technologies US Inc. That resolution also highlights the public or has highlighted the fact that the public has not seen uh benefit from this particular contract and thus it funding funding should be repurposed to meet other critical safety needs such as helping expense MPD's capacity to clear and solve cases. Uh with that I will move both motions for approval and ask for a second. >> We have a proper motion before us. Um we'll move to discussion. Council President Payne. >> Uh, [snorts] thank you, Vice President Chuck Tai. I actually held my comments on the last item because of the source and my connection to it. I didn't want to bring any bias into that conversation, but I think there is some relevancy here in that I [snorts] was actually genuinely shocked when we had that case closure presentation in PHS to hear that um the commander was not authorized to actually hire for the positions that we had allocated. I had been, you know, I meet monthly with the police chief. One of the topics that I was raising almost on a monthly basis was, you know, where are the crimerevention specialists that were allocated for the fifth precinct? Um, I showed up to a neighborhood association meeting on Monday and, you know, the the the chair of the neighborhood had to apologize and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. Our our our precinct inspector is not available. I'm sorry. Our um crime prevention specialist is not available." And I I I was confused about where that crimerevention specialist was. And it turned out, you know, it was later reported in the Star Tribune that uh they had been working a second job and over billing overtime and they have separated from the city. I don't know any further details beyond what's reported in the Star Tribune, but it's a reflection of um a poor uh set of financial controls, lack of oversight, and bad management practices within MPD that is leading to council allocating resources to achieve a specific community safety outcome and and our inability to achieve that. This should not be an amendment before us today because uh we we made this allocation last year. it should have been implemented. And it's only been this week since we got the quarterly report where we saw the $19 million cost overrun, which maybe is getting at why maybe some of those positions were were held. And I think that's a failure of transparency. We should not have these, you know, decisions that seem to not make sense that we later learn the reason they might make sense is because there was a major, you know, overbudget scenario in the department. So, I think that we need to restore these civilian investigators, but beyond that, we need to make sure that we have tighter management and financial controls over this department. >> Next, I'll recognize council member Palmisano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't disagree with anything that President Payne just said, um, but I did want to speak to the Zen City part of this amendment, which is part B, right? We're not going to vote on that separately. Um, unless you asked to divide the question. >> No, I think that's fine. Um, the supporting documents for this amendment reference that the contract with Zen City does not fulfill any provision of the MDHR settlement agreement, but yet the settlement agreement does require that Minneapolis prove it is adhering to its training requirements. This contract is about measuring whether that training is working and residents see or feel a difference, whether they feel they're being treated fairly. It is about surveying, not surveillance, which a lot of people seem to be conflating here. [snorts] This isn't about Zen City. This is about the need to survey our residents, whoever does it. This is about compliance with the settlement agreement. This is about reaching communities who have been historically discriminated against by MPD and meeting requirements that non-discriminatory policing efforts reflect the values and needs of those communities. We know that typical online surveys don't reach communities in the proportion that we have them here in our city. [snorts] I have um a couple questions from for I think Commissioner Barnett about this. Um, I I think I'm correct in those statements, but I don't understand how we will accomplish this work if we cut the funding for surveying services. This is not something that we can do in house, is it? >> Through the chair, uh, council member Pomosano, you're absolutely correct. Um, this is not uh we don't have the capability to do to do this internally. That's right. Are there other vendors who can provide this type of engagement? >> I would probably have to go back uh and look at that. I don't I know we um have Zinc City doing this. Um I don't know what other vendors do do this work. >> So if we need to survey to prove compliance, um I I don't really understand how we're going to achieve that. What would the loss of the special crimes investigations department contractual funds mean for them? There's a lot of teams within investigations. I'm not sure what these are. I assume things like homicide, sexual assault, property crimes. Um, if this amendment pass, um, and I think you have it in your packet, um, we'll lose, uh, we'll have to lose two embedded social workers, uh, three of our 13, uh, chaplain, and we would also, uh, look at, um, having to reduce some of the victim services or advocated services that we have. So, >> so social workers seems like a big loss um, to me. chaplain for people in their time of need. Um what was the third thing you said? >> And also uh when you look at reducing the $79,000 in special crimes contractual services that will uh result in a reduction of our victim advocacy uh funding. Victim advocacy is something that many of us here on this day have been looking to bolster and add um funding and attention to over the past several years. I feel like this has a direct impact on our community and I find it hard to believe that civilian investigators will somehow decrease the need for these other services as stated in the supporting documents for this amendment. That is an absolute supposition. Um, I think that there is a point of confusion in the community that surveying is somehow the same as surveillance. Uh, Zen City was hired to help research diverse demographics and ask if they [clears throat] would voluntarily participate in a survey of their perceptions of MPD. Do the authors of this resolution think that we can do targeted outreach inhouse for less money and greater success? I I doubt that we can, but I would encourage the authors to tell me how they think we should. I would encourage the authors to help educate me as to how they met with city staff to discuss how this work would be replaced by defunding this contract. This work does need to be done to contrary to the beliefs of the authors. This contract is up at the end of next year. So, why not let the contract run out and allow an RFP? We can't just cut the surveying um for for forever for good. >> Council member Osman. >> Oh, I I I I do wanted to talk about the sensitivity as we hear the public um comments. It's obvious if you do a little bit of research. This is uh um Israeli intelligent um folks that are uh that we contract. I I just didn't know why in the beginning we contracted such a horrible uh business organization who continue to um you know surveillance and do horrible things in in in in Palestine. um go check out a Twitter or what the CEO is saying. Um so personally have a um disagreement specific to S city and why we should contract and I think we should listen to other residents who have continue to uh voice their their concern about uh as a city Minneapolis contracting um this kind of uh surveillance organization that continue to violate human rights as we speak in Palestine. So that is just a simple answer and simple straightforward should not be lining up. We don't have the same value as them. Thank you. >> Uh thank you council member. Um I put myself in queue. I have some questions for the author um that I'm hoping council member Wanley will answer for me. Mhm. Um, Council Member Wanley, uh, in putting together this amendment, did your office meet with, um, with the police department to discuss their budget? >> Yeah, we followed up on this with all of our departments. And actually, I had a presentation done on the Zen City contract specifically and administration oversight way like a year ago ahead of these deliberations cuz we've long discussed um as a body. What purpose does this actually serve in terms of a surveying tool and other options that we could pursue which as someone who was here before you direct or commissioner Barnett um I recall MPD saying they could do competitive bids. But the outstanding question is if you all actually did a competitive RFP bid for this contract. So yeah, we did lots of work on this one. >> Wonderful. I I have several questions for you, council member. Um the next one, um did you meet with the person who is the closest expert to the finances of the Minneapolis Police Department? Their finance director. >> Oh yeah, Miss Vicki. Vicki. Yes. Yes, we did. Yes. >> Wonderful. That's excellent. So, let's go through the two places where the decreases are happening um or the the reductions are happening to the police department budget. And I'm I just want you to tell me what it is that Director Troswick told you um would have would impact um the police department's budget just cuz there seems to be some confusion about you know chaplain again. So, um, on the first one, the $150,000 reduction to community engagement and outreach bureau, >> tell me where what that what where what happens, what is that money coming from? >> Yeah, so as the budget amendment notes, it does come from the police department, community engagement, and outreach bureau. Uh, within that, specifically, their contractual services where Zen City and a number of other contracts are held, and we're talking about in the millions. Um, and we have been in conversations with the director to learn that not all of the Zen City money have been allocated. And actually, this should not impact core services because there's already terms baked into that contract that says the city could terminate within those three years at the end of each year. So, we could have terminated, which we're asking you all to do now. And there will be savings and we are proposing using those savings of the 150,000 to go towards civilian investigators. And then of the separate uh piece of this, the remaining 75, sorry, $79,852 come from MPD's Investigations and Forensic Division Contractual Services. And that budget is $5.4 million um for 2026. And and you specifically uh did you specifically think about using the the uh forensic services contractual services the contractual services budget because um as it turns out when we don't have um enough staffing for civilian invested contract we have to contract it out. >> Exactly. So bring the services in-house. That's actually the most cost-effective model of this. Why not prioritize as we had the foresight to do a year ago um to make that investment of really this is low 200 and something thousands um so that we're not constantly outsourcing in maybe the potential millions from contractual services for investigative needs. And last thing I think um uh are are crime are civilian investigators actually um represented employees of of ASME. >> Yes, these are union members with ASME. >> So you wanted us to use contractual services money to to expand uh labor represented positions within our own uh department in house. >> Yes. >> Excellent. >> Yeah. And I just want to highlight too, this was complimenting the almost $20 million investment we made in the police contract that articulated and got a letter of agreement um for us to hire more civilian investigators. So, this literally pairs with that $20 million investment to actually execute the police contract, too. >> Wonderful. Thank you for answering my questions and letting me put you on trial, Council Member Wanley. And thank you for educating all of us about what happened in the background when you picked um these sources. Next, we're going to move to Council President Payne, followed by Council Member Cashman. >> Uh thank you, Vice President Chuck Tai. Uh I put myself in queue earlier, then I took myself out, but I I felt I wanted to add myself back to Q. My original thought pattern here was um we we like to talk a lot about the settlement agreement and the requirements. I it's just so fundamentally important to remind ourselves that the requirements within the settlement agreement are the floor. They're the bare minimum to deliver constitutional policing in the city of Minneapolis. Uh we should always be striving to do something better than the bare minimum. Um so that's just more of a philosophical thing. But on the matter of um Zen City as a source, um I actually have two thoughts. on the matter of Zen City as a source. Uh I did get a chance to sit down with Commander Martin who's overseeing the uh community engagement outreach bureau who is the person that is responsible for um administering uh Zen City. I got a chance to meet with PMI leadership uh and and DCO uh Garnet Hohouli to just talk about what the the body's will was when it came to this contract and what we were trying to accomplish with it. and they we we had a very robust conversation around our internal capacity to be able to meet the needs of the settlement agreement. And um I offered up in that meeting to sit down with whomever we need to sit down with whether that's in PMI or um in the uh community engagement outreach bureau. Uh the expertise is in house. I actually developed I I was a contractor and on PMI before I was elected. I was contracted to be an expert in design thinking and research methods and we developed an entire research methodology to do the behavioral crisis response that had very robust surveying. Um we have a very different set of requirements where it comes to surveying for the settlement agreement but it is my belief that um if we work together as an institution we can actually achieve our goals right and I'm offering up my services to help us get there. Um, and on the second thing, we've gone through this a number of times. These cuts, these don't translate to the cuts that you're outlining. We don't get to decide those cuts. You get to decide those cuts. So, if you're saying that the impact is going to be on victim services or on chaplain, that's a choice that we don't get to make, that's a choice that MPD leadership gets to make. And I hope that MPD leadership will look at their budget and be really thoughtful about where they think the impact is going to be minimized. That's all I got to say. >> Council member Cashman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I chose to co-author this amendment because of the low clearance rates that uh we're hearing about and and the need for more investigation capacity. And I know that it's easier to hire civilian investigators than it is sworn investigators given staffing shortages and in the police department and as well as all of the training and requirements that go that go into becoming a sworn officer. So I think that civilianizing these positions are a really good way to get our capacity up in investigations. We also fought hard for this in negotiations uh with the last police contract as someone else mentioned and I think we deserve to carry out this strategy of civilianizing our investigations. I also think that when it comes to police accountability, one of the best ways that we can improve accountability with our community is through strong and successful investigations. That is the user experience, a customer experience of the police department is, you know, when you file a police report, do folks follow up with you? Do they ask questions? Do they get your statement? Do they provide you updates on your investigation? And then eventually, do they create consequences for the crime that that took place? And I know that it's a incredibly um difficult process to come to closure uh on on a crime that took place, but the only way we're going to improve that is by creating strategic investments in the services that we know are really meaningful and helpful to our residents. And then secondly, when it comes to the source, it's very rare that we have residents come to us in a public hearing asking for cuts. And I mean that was a great opportunity to have hundreds of residents saying cut this service. We don't want this service. That rarely happens. And our residents are saying we don't want to be surveyed by Zen City. Uh we're tired of the popups on our social media feed and not knowing what else they're they're looking at when they're um scrubbing data from our social media feeds. And I think it's I think it is a good source to take from because our residents are asking for us to stop using that service and I think this is a perfect way to get more resources into the civilian investigators that we need. >> Thank you. Next I will recognize council member Vita. >> Thank you uh chair. So the the um the se I watched that presentation in public health and safety about uh the the group that St. Paul has pulled together around um case solving and like investigations. And I did hear them say that civilians help, but I also what I heard was that civilians need sworn cops to to actually clear the case. Like they can only do parts of the investigation and then we need sworn officers to like take everything off the finish line. So over the finish line. So where I keep getting confused with like adding more civilians is we don't have enough sworn officers to help the civilians. So now do we get to a place where the civilians start to work on things and then we just got a huge backlog of cases that they've investigated and we don't have officers assigned to it. I mean I it feels like we're working backwards here. It the goal should be and money was taken away from that. The goal should be recruitment was what I heard in that presentation. The goal should be training up officers because we got a lot of new officers coming in to the department that are going to need years of training and on the job work to be investigators. But if we're going to work with what we have now, adding more civilians is not it. Yes, they can they can come into the department, but they can only do so much without a sworn officer. So, I don't know like what the if this is going to um help the case clearance if we don't have more police officers. If we don't have more and it's not just more police officers cuz even if we were training, this is my understanding of that presentation. Even if we were training um the officers we have the rate in which we can do that, it's not fast enough to get us there. we have to go to some other resources to bring more experienced officers into the department so they can be at the investigative level. I I I mean I'm I'm kind of just rambling on, Commissioner. I don't know if you caught some questions in there, but that was my um observation of that presentation. It wasn't just that like, yeah, hire more civilians and more cases will be solved. What was impressive about that presentation is how they talked about how they worked with the more senior officers to get those cases over the finish line and and like the training and now we don't have a training facility and like all these things that I feel like we're taking away from the department is really the core of what we need to build the department up to complete investigations. So, so that that is one thing and then the second thing is the Zen City contract. Of course, I had ward for um residents who reached out to me and said, "Cut the Zen city contract." And they named whatever amount, you know, the handful of residents who came here are the same ones who reached out to me in community and said, um, cut the contract. And I think as a council member, it was up to me to say, uh, the truth about the contract is that you're not being surveyed. Like, it is a survey on the internet. if you can participate in it or you can't. Um, we had a presentation from them about their affiliations here in public. They answer questions that people had and this council voted for that contract. Okay. Not the one where you wanted, but a city council voted for this contract. And so it wasn't like this wasn't something that came through council and didn't pass. And so my question about this Zen City contract is because we're under contract with this company. If this cut, if this is cut, do we still owe them money? Like how is this going to are the city of Minneapolis residents still going to pay for this contract even if we cut it in this way? >> Through the chair, um, [clears throat] two things. one uh council member Vita I do like many many of you find that the civilian investigators are important to the work that we do um and I don't want to uh leave that impression that they're not important at all um they provide a lot of value but um they support our sworn officers um they're not the lead investigators um so it is that support for um our police department and and the work they do and they they do uh provide value. As far as the contractual obligation in terminating the contract, I would have to defer that to the city attorney's office um as to what their opinion is if we owe them money or not. >> Okay. Can the city attorney please ask us what I mean answer that question? I need to understand like what happens if the contract is cut at this point because I thought we had like a multi-year contract with Zen City um for a specific dollar amount and I guess the addition to that would be where are we in the contract with Zen City? Um like what's left? >> That's to the city attorney. Madam Chair, >> uh, Madame Chair, um, council members, so I'm I just got sent the contract right now. Um, I so I don't know how far into it we are and how how much money we owe them for obviously we have to pay them for services already rendered. Um the termination clause um allows um for termination without cause for uh with 30 days written notice. >> Okay. So we're just going we're I I don't know if we need a staff memo, but I'd like to know how much we've paid out on this contract already and um what are we going to get for what we've paid for so far? Um, we've noted that as a a staff uh for administrative >> be paid out, right? I don't She didn't give us Did she get Did you give us an end date to this contract? >> November 26th, I believe >> of this year of 2020. >> 2026. Oh, okay. So, it's it's uh up in October. Oh, okay. Um, the council member Vie, your time is about to expire, so >> Oh, I'm good. >> Okay, wonderful. Sounds good. Um, council member Chavez. >> Thank you, Chair Chuck Tai. I I remember if I recall correctly in the presentation uh that we had where folks from St. Paul came and we asked questions about the civilian investigators. The police department did say that the two civilian investigators would be helpful and needed to the police department and they would be happy if they had that cuz they would be assisting them in these investigations. Obviously, there's limitations on what a civilian investigator can do, but I did want to be very clear to the public and to folks here on the deis and to our staff that the police department did say that it they would they would they would find it helpful. Obviously, it won't address everything that we are seeing in our community, but I just want to make it clear that this is a service that is desperately needed and it is verified if you rewatch the public health and safety committee. So I wanted to start with that and also would like to ask authors if I could be included on not the budget amendment but on the resolution itself. So the the resolution urging the termination of the contract. Um well clerks have noted that. Wonderful. Um are you done with your >> Y. >> Okay. Um put myself in Q. Um, so I wanted to just make sure or I'm sorry. I I think we're trying to figure out um whether we have a clear answer right now on on when this contract is set to expire, but I not not confirmed. >> Oh, um, go ahead, madam city attorney. >> Thank you, council vice president. I was looking at the contract as you were talking. So, according to the terms of the contract, uh, it goes from November 9th, 2023 through November 8th, 2026. November 2026. Um, and Okay, perfect. Thank you. Um, I do want to just just make some I'm trying to wrap my head around this this discussion of the the limitations that civilian investigators have and um the the benefit that they add to um to supplement the work of sworn officers. I I think it' just be helpful to know um commissioner if you can tell me or um how many civilian investigators are a part of the department right now. I can't recall the number myself. Let me see if I have that for you. [clears throat] >> I do not have that in my notes, but I can get it for you. >> Is there anyone that you Yes. is available like on hand right now while we're having the discussion on this item? Okay. So, it just be I I want two numbers. I want to know uh the total number of civilian investigators in the department right now and the total number of um sworn uh officers in the in the department right now. Thank you. That's really the only thing I want to know. So I've got 3 minutes of time um on the clock. I can just wait. >> That's fine. >> If you might be able to get an answer quickly. Actually, since we have a couple other members in queue, I'm going to recognize them so they can do what they council member Wanley followed by council member Vita. >> Yeah, thank you CBP Chuck Tai. Um, in regards to the city attorney noting the contract terms in terms of deadlines, um, if there's a discrepancy because the RCA in limbs vow says that the contract that was approved in 2023 um, says that it actually expires, let me double check. Yeah, it started October 7, 2023 and it goes through October 6, 2026. So, I don't know what >> Madame City attorney. >> Yeah. Uh, council vice president, council, I'm just looking at the document that was that that was sent to me, which is the executed contract that has it going through November 8th, 2026. Was there a adjustment or a change? Because again, I'm just looking at the limbs file, which has something completely different. It has the October 6, 2026 date. Yeah, I don't know. >> So, I would like a staff follow up on that to understand what are the changes. But regardless of it, and it sounds like both what you have and also in the limbs file, there was that termination clause um baked in that we could within 30-day notice um be able to terminate that contract. And that assumes that all balances due will also be paid. So there would no be no financial like lingerings on our end that we would need to cover which is why we were intentional about taking from the contractual service budget cuz this there would be now vacancies should this contract be terminated. That's not a question for you though uh city attorney. I just wanted to note the the changes there. >> Awesome. Um do you have do you have >> I do have some information for you uh chair. Uh it appears that we have um 29 civilian investigators. Uh it appears that 28 of those positions are filled. As far as the amount remaining on the contract, it appears that there's about $112,500 remaining on the contract. >> Wonderful. And do you have a number for me on the total sworn? I'm trying to get that number for you. Um I don't know the exact number of total sworn. >> Excellent. Um council me or Vita. >> Thank you. Um I I had a question kind of similar to yours because one of the other things in that presentation was about the number of um cases that should be assigned to officers. And so um I was I I can't remember I do remember when I saw the presentation I thought wow that's a really low number of ca lower than what I thought the number of cases should be um for officers. So just wondering if anyone who's on that committee remembers or if we can get the information they they it was a very low number of cases. Well I shouldn't say low. It was a number of cases that was that should be assigned to an officer. Um, and it was based on like what kind of crimes they were. So, just wondering like do we do the same thing with civilians? Do we assign numbers of cases? Do they go do are these civilians going to get assigned to specific officers or or specific crimes? And like how all of that's going to work out also? Um, I'm just looking to the chair of the committee to see if we can get something or council member Wansy, do you have the answer? >> Yeah, just clarification and I think there's a conflation of what's happening. So the presentation in the public health and safety committee is actually related to the following budget amendment of 17, the non-fatal uh shooting task force where actually gets at council member Vita's concerns around us actually make up making appropriations for sworn staff to do investigative work. Uh there was not much conversation around civilian Yeah. And in terms of them providing supplemental support, everyone agrees there there is a need for more sworn staffing support, which is where we're also having a gap. But the civilia investigator piece that didn't really get discussed actually in that non-fatal shooting presentation. >> No, I don't I don't think that that's where my concern is. I completely understand what you're saying, Council Member Wanley, but the the point I was trying to make was that the civilian staff only can go so far in investigations. So, if we don't have the sworn staff to support that, then we'll we'll just have a bunch of cases that are piled up that need sworn officers. And that is what I've heard in in these public health and safety presentations is there. It's not that civilians don't help. they do a great job, but where things um [clears throat] can get behind or necessarily don't meet up is when we don't have the sworn staff. And we have to do some work around building up our sworn um officer, the number of sworn officers we have if we really want to get to the root of um clearing up these cases and, you know, solving these crimes for families is is what I took away from that presentation. I I I mean yeah and and and the number of cases that are assigned to officers also for me is was like you know the it didn't match up. St. Paul one had fewer cases than we did and we don't have as many officers assigned that as we had seven eight years ago and we're adding civilians to that um who can only go so far is the point I was trying to make. It wasn't that civilians don't do a great job. It's really about are we being productive or are we um being counterproductive by adding these positions and there's like no future in resolving things fully. >> Wonderful. Um commissioner, you've got a number on sworn. >> Yes, chair. Um right now there is 540 active sworn officers. Um, and chair, I thought you would want to know that there is 74 sworn investigators. >> Oh, 74 sworn investigators. >> Yes. >> Gotcha. So, 540 sworn officers. >> Active sworn officers. >> Active sworn. And then >> so you you know that the reason I specifically asked that question >> is because the way the state defined sworn >> officers that would include those in the academy. So I wanted to know which ones are actually active on the street if that makes sense. >> Yeah. Yep. That that makes sense. Thank you for thank you for doing the distinction there. So like for every officer we have for every civilian investigator there are 19 sworn officers total on the force. Not asking you to answer the question. I I'm I'm telling you for an objective fact from my calculator. Um okay. I'm not seeing any further discussion. Clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Payne. >> Hi. >> Wsley. >> Hi. >> Rainville. >> No. Vita, >> no. >> Osman, >> I >> Cashman, >> I >> Jenkins, >> I >> Chavez, >> I >> Chowry, >> I >> Palisano, >> no. >> Vice Chair Kausski, >> I >> chair Chugai >> I. >> That is nine eyes's and three nazs. Um that motion carries. Next up is amendment number 16 um which is offered by council members Wanley and pres council member Wanley and President Payne related to MPD offduty fees. Council member [snorts] Wanley. Oh okay. Um Council Member Wy, will you please present your amendment and make a motion? >> Thank you. CBP check. Um, [clears throat] this is one before I do the introduction, I would actually like to uh see where our COO is. Um, I I know this is typically uh typically or should be a matter handled by the Office of Community Safety. For unknown reasons, we primarily have been connecting with uh Margaret Anderson Keller around a potential administrative um proposal for this that they would like to see. Um, so because of that, I would like for them to be able to talk about what that is first and then potentially table this until they're able to get us those proposals. >> Um, so is it are am I capturing that correctly? You want to you want us to return back to this item because there's some outstanding information that's orating things. Yes, but I wanted to at least I no shade to you, Commissioner Barton. I have not been connecting with you about this matter, so I wasn't sure. There we go. If uh COO Margaret Anderson can give a little bit more context of what they're discussing on the administrative side. >> We'll welcome the the COO now. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think I even identified myself the first time. Margaret Anderson Kellaher, CO for the city of Minneapolis. Um thank you, Council Member Wanley, for the question. What we've been working on with council member Wanley and I know council member Payne, you're also on the amendment is to do something that will produce real progress on offduty in 2026. And so the what that looks like um is to do some funding from the IT department as well as the police department to the amount of $200,000 to work on the change management part of the offduty program. And so that is something that could be accomplished. and we have provided um a written an updated written amendment to staff to go through. I also do have other folks here who could speak to this. The difference is that um there will there could be at some point in the future a need for an app that would collect data that would help collect the fees, but we're that's far ahead of the horse right now. And the reason I'm speaking to this is this is this is a this is a cross collaboration between IT and MPD. And so the what's happening right now is that we are in process in building the new timekeeping system for MPD which is a foundational product or based on a foundational product of UKG for timekeeping. Then on top of that product needs to be built an integration to collect and track offduty time. And then on top of that will need to likely be something that can help us easily collect the fees. The UKG project which is the base for all of this is to be done at the end of 2026. It is both timekeeping and supervisory related. It updates our system from the old workforce director that we've been using. We will deactivate workforce director, go to UKG, then be able to build on top of that without having to go through um further expense like double spending because we will just move to building the uh integration for the offduty timekeeping. On top of that, this is a priority for the administration. I know it's a priority for you, Council Member Wanley, and everyone around the table. So, that is what is happening and the proposal back is to really work on that change management piece of it that has to happen. >> Yeah. With the two minutes that I have left, I think I also asked in terms of our follow-up conversations and I think it's just getting clarity because our proposal is literally based on what MPD and OCS shared themselves where they never mentioned it potentially working on something already. Um they mentioned the need for a third party vendor to administer or administer these fees. So I shared this with you co that this was information that I heard for the first time in our year and a half actually we've been doing this work on this matter since 2022 but the fee piece where we've had multiple meetings around this never heard this until you pulled me to the side and shared that about an hour ago. So I think it's getting clarity on then why was this not articulated in the presentation or report by OCS and MPD back in May or June when you gave that presentation? What happened there? Council, Vice President, uh, Council Member Wanley, I think it between May or June or whenever we gave the presentation and now or earlier this week when we submitted that memo as well, things changed as far as the progress on the UKG U project itself and our understanding of how the two needed to interplay. I think the COO said it well. If we do a application or software that we're managing off duty or coordinating offduty through that next year, we'll have to essentially duplicate the work when UKG comes in and we're able to finish out that project. So, I hope that makes sense and answers your question >> somewhat. We'll connect during recess, but for the time being, I'm going to motion to table this to allow us the next couple recesses to have further conversation around it and then get through the rest of the proposals. >> Yep. Um, Council Member Winsley, I'm going to suggest we don't need a a a motion on this one. Without objection, are we ready? Can we table and come back to this? Um, COO, just a clarifying question for you. when you or just earlier you mentioned there was a a amendment draft circulated among staff. Were you talking about finance staff or were you talking about chair and and author staff? >> Um chair uh we shared it with council member Wanley and her staff right now for a review of it first. >> Perfect. That sounds excellent. Wonderful. Thank you. Um with that we are tableabling number 17 or number 16. All right. Now we are ready for amendment number 17 [snorts] which is related to nonfatal shooting task force um offered by council member Wanley. Council member Wansley, will you please introduce your amendment and make a motion? >> Thank you. CBP check. Um this actually correlates with the conversation that we had just related to the civilian sworn um sorry not civilian yeah civilian uh investigators in terms of us uh beefing up um support on the sworn side of things. But this budget amendment essentially is a $1.7 million earmark within MPD's public safety services budget. Uh the intention of this money is to fund between seven to nine investigators to implement a non-fatal task force shooting or non-fatal shooting task force. Sorry about that. Uh we talked about this already, but we know the clearance rate for non-fatal shootings in Minneapolis um just based off of 2024 data was 26%. And these numbers are not unique. Um MPD clearance numbers in general outside of homicides have actually been some of the worst in the nation. And this was even the case in 2019 when MPD had double the amount of investigators that they do now. Um, for the past year, my office has explored how other law enforcement agencies across the state and country have increased their effectiveness at solving cases. And fortunately, u, my office didn't have to look too far as there is a nationleading example right across the river in St. Paul. That said, I've spent this year engaging with several stakeholders um and experts to learn more about St. Paul's massive success after implementing a non-fatal shootings task force. Um in 2024, prior to the task force creation, St. Paul's clearance rates for non-fatal shootings was 38%. And then after implementation of that task force, it rose to 70%. In addition to massive improvements in their clearance rates, the task force shared that they have seen a 30% reduction in shots fired and a 70% decrease in homicides. So their success and be is is essentially being applauded nationwide. Um and St. Paul is also showcasing their work to other law enforcement agencies and we're glad that they were able to come to our own public health and safety committee um to share that work with us so we too can learn how to solve and improve uh public safety issues like the backlog we're experiencing around investigative cases. Um there does seem to be um just no proposals that in in many conversations with the administration of we all agree that clearance rates are bad. we need to be doing something around reducing our backlog of cases. Um we can't just continue on with it with the status quo of what we have now. That's clearly not working. Um and while council can't direct operations, we can fund programs that do work. And this amendment does that in attempts to solve the problem that MPD and city leaders are essentially ignoring if we continue with just saying we're going to do what we're doing now. We're going to stick with our preparations that we have now. Um so of course I encourage colleagues to check out that public health and safety committee where we had those experts come and discuss u more about the success of this model how it can be translated over um but this is giving MPD additional in-house sworn off uh sworn resources that's even complementing the work that we're trying to do around the police contract negotiations to beef up um our our resources needed for investigations and reducing it exhaustive an extensive backlog. Um so with that um I will move this amendment forward for approval and ask for a second. >> Second. >> We have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? Council member Palmisano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I think it's great that St. Paul has been able to significant significantly increase their clearance rates for non-fatal shootings and I hope the same for us someday. We had a long discussion at public safety as to some of the big differences as to why and how all of that works. Um, one big difference here for a budget debate is that they funded the program with state aid, not appropriating it within their existing police department budget. Um, I've lost track, honestly, of how much public safety aid money we might have left, but I think there's some in community safety center pilots. Um, maybe public safety aid money would be a better source for trying out a program like this. And if we had the staffing numbers to support this, I'd be all for it. Um, this amendment along with number well the one that we just tabled 16 and then 22 total over $3 million in earmarks within MPD public safety services. Um, but I I think that to accommodate this earmark and we know an earmark is a cut to other services that it would mean cutting sworn patrol positions. That's a non-starter. If we want to work our way back up to the charter minimum and to a point where we could staff a task force like this, we can't take away from the entrylevel jobs that will fill out our ranks. As we heard in that public safety meeting, um that's not this is not an entrylevel position. It takes I forget what rank sergeant rank to be able to be part of these investigations. Um, the savings that we incur with the openings not only help us cover overtime, but they're also funding our CSOS and others in training in the pipeline. They may not be ready yet, but they will be someday. We cannot mortgage our future staffing needs to this task force. Um, sorry, Commissioner Barnett, but I need to ask you up here. Um because I'm curious how you were consulted about this to understand the impacts that it might have to precinct operations in staffing like how would this impact officers in their existing work in order to stand up a team like this >> through the chair uh council member uh Pomisano. I'll start by just saying that this is something that we've uh talked about internally uh to try to figure out how do we do it. Um early on uh when I got in this position uh two of the folks that presented um in front of um Council Member Wley and her committee uh Will Culie and um David Zimmerman both approached me uh about the nonfatal shooting. uh what they were doing at the legislature. Uh also um talking about what has happened with St. Paul. [snorts] Um we uh were hopeful through um some legislation by uh Representative uh Frasier who I believe also was present uh for the presentation that that legislation would pass. It did not. Um which >> I don't even think it got a hearing. >> Right. So commissioner >> that is true. So, why am I saying that? Because then we went back to to talk about this again. Um, Chief O'Hare and I have talked about this uh several times. Um it boils down to um how do we accomplish this with the staff that we have and in order to do this um and you're right about there's a certain rank in which um we need in order to do this uh and in no means um is it that we don't want to. I think it would be great if we could. Um, but the staffing right now is not at a level in which um we think we could do it um without other areas being uh affected in our investigations in patrol. Um I think uh if you you know talked to uh Deputy Chief Olsen, she would tell you the same thing is pulling those folks from the work that they're doing and able to do this. Um, and so, uh, I think it will affect other areas if this, uh, amendment is passed. >> Thank you. And my understanding is currently non-fatal shootings are assigned to the homicide unit. They're just not as top priority as the actual homicides in the homicide unit. And we used to have this kind of a team. Um but we just don't haven't had the staffing to continue it for the past few years at least >> through the chair. >> Is that also your understanding? >> Through the chair um council member Pomisano, it is true that we don't have the staffing uh to give the attention to these non-fatal shootings that we would want to. Um I also believe that there um I think I would have to double check, but I think there are a sign in the homicide division. Mhm. Um, back in October when we had this very thorough report and conversation in public health and safety committee, um, the deputy chief currently had 14 sworn and two civilian investigators. The civilian investigators doing more of the background work. Um, it's really hard to compare Minneapolis to St. Paul. Um, there were 378 non-fatal shootings in Minneapolis last year. Um, I don't remember what St. Paul's was, but so far as as of that October public safety meeting, there were 50 homicides in Minneapolis, but only 10 in St. Paul. And it's really important for us to know that victim count does not equal case count. one mass shooting, which we had a very complicated mass shooting in August, uh is one as far as a non-fatal shooting case, not 21, which is the number of children shot in that one case. Um MPD has been working with the National Public Safety Partnership on this. They've received recommendations and they are doing similar kinds of work um to what St. Paul does, but I think it's just not as simple as adding more staff. And I should probably stop there for time purposes. >> Thank you, council member. Um, I'll recognize council member Wanley. >> Thank you. Uh, CBP Chuck Tai, I think it's important to highlight that if the share goal is to get seasoned um, officers to come in, which is needed in order to actually address this backlog. No one's making up new numbers. This is based off of MPD's own backlog of cases that's articulated also on the public dashboard. Um that you have to hire seasoned investigators. Right now the way in which the administration has structured its budget does not even allow us to do that uh because they've put every position um at an entry level. So, let's say the conversations that we're having to create new leadership positions to allow for us to build up more seasoned investigators, you would need to do a job classification based off of our current positions right now, our sworn officers, in order to actually pay um those seasoned officers what they would be required. So, this is essentially complementing that process. We're saying we're earmarking between seven to nine positions. the administration gets to decide to give us at least an initial start to put this together and you will have to do the reclassifications which you would have had to do anyways if we were actually serious about beefing up sworn personnel to actually uh boost up our investigative divisions. Um but the other thing that I'm hearing the table is just like oh we're don't do anything. No one is comparing No. And I'm not saying you but I'm saying actually yeah actually the administration of you're saying things are working. We're still at uh what was that uh 28% clearance rate and I do think it's important that we are looking at other innovative models and models that even our own county supports because what was great about St. Paul's example is uh Ramsey County was at the table and that involved other partners. Henipin County also wants to be at the table and also are excited to bring resources. That's why we're saying this is the initial upfront investment which we're already talking about doing in many other ways because we all recognize that our solving rate or our clearance rates are low and that means we're not solving cases and that means there are families out here who have not gotten an answer on their cases or justice have not been delivered through the traditional means. So this is the baseline of it. this initial investment. And with that, I would still encourage my colleagues to support this and call the question. Council member Wansley has called the question. That is not a debatable motion. Please call Oh, yes. Uh the [laughter] um it's proper motion. Cler call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. >> Rainville, >> no. >> Beta, >> no. Osman >> I >> Cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> I >> Palmisano >> no >> vice chair Kausski >> I >> and chair tug chugai >> I >> that is nine eyes's and three nazs that motion carries Um, >> just a common question. >> Question. >> Yeah. Uh, now let's take up the underlying question. Thank you. Um, clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> hi. >> Rainville, >> no. >> Vita, >> no. >> Osman, >> I. >> Cashman, >> I >> Jenkins, >> no. >> Chavez, >> hi. Chowry >> I >> Pomisano >> no >> vice chair Kausski >> I >> chair chunkai >> I that is eight I's and four naz that motion carries the um I think we're gonna try to get through. So, the next three amendments are the last of the safety related amendments that we need to take up. Let's see if we can try to get through one of them. Um, or if there's not a lot of discussion, maybe if we get through all of them, that's when we'll do our second recess. Can I just see uh like from a I want to do a vibe check here. Do we need a recess right now? >> No. >> No. Okay. Okay. We can we can get through the safety ones and then maybe we can take a recess. >> Excellent. Okay, here we go. Um, num number our next amendment is number 17 offered by >> Oh, sorry. Um, our next amendment is amendment number 18 offered by Council Member Osman related to Steven Square safety initiative. Council member Osman. >> Uh, thank you uh, Council Vice President. I I think you heard me many times talk about the hot spots in our city and you have heard me talk about 18 and Nicollet which are really struggling area and um this will allow uh neighborhood and safety department to design and implement safety focus strategies tailored to the neighbor the need of Steven Square um neighborhood which is particularly emphasizes highly impacted uh corridor at at this area. Um this will support safety measures that include community visibility efforts, safety presence in public areas, conflict uh prevention activities, public space activities, uh youth engagement, improve corridor between the city and local stakeholders. So, some of the area uh as council member Kash and I talked about many times about um uh the need of of services and and help for this area. Um it's been really impacted heavily. Um so, I'm hoping that this will bring some kind of relief uh next year and um so hope to get your support. Thanks a lot. >> We and will you >> Okay. Um, >> is there any discussion? Council member Kashman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to note that our neighborhood safety director, Amanda Harrington, did send us an update pretty recently that they're working on another contract for the Steven Square neighborhood under violence prevention. And I think it is more than needed because the last one that was implemented with Smelly Youth Link was for three neighborhoods at the same time. So that isn't being seen in Steven Square as much as maybe we would like it to be along 19th and Nicollet. It was, you know, they're being sent to Carmel Mall and other areas um as well. And so I think that and then again this was one of the areas that the analysis done by our technical experts on where the most amount of of need is for Minneapolis services. It was identified but it took the longest out of every area to find a vendor that could fulfill it. And so it has really been a gap. And I think it's it is wise for us to keep pushing on making sure this incredibly dense, incredibly important uh largely low income neighborhood is getting the services they need. Uh thank you. Um I am not seeing any further discussion. Um so clerk, please call the role on amendment number 18, Steven Square safety initiative. Council member Payne >> I >> Wsley >> is absent. Rainville >> I >> VA >> I >> Osman >> I >> Cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> I >> Palmisano >> I >> vice chair Kausski >> I chair Chuktai >> I that is 11 eyes. >> That motion carries. Um, next up is amendment number 19. Um, will you take this one as Okay, perfect. Um, this is offered by Council Member Wanley and Council Member Osman. Uh, related to public housing tenant organizing, amendment number 19. Um, Council Member Wansley, would you like to present this? >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Yes. >> Oh, good. >> Uh, going down. Going down >> and move approval. Wait. Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. CBP checkai. Uh, this amendment um reduces after conversations with the administration. Um, this amendment reduces um the original allocation of 100,000 to 50,000. It also changes the source from neighborhood safety um and specifically reroutes that to CPAD. Um, this will also be ongoing funding that would support high-rise public housing residents with their public safety needs. Um, Project Lookout is the tenant run neighborhood watch program inside the highrises. And Project Lookout was created due to a resident desire for more safety patrolling without more armed police and security. Um, this ongoing funding will help support them in paying a staff member to support that work. And with that, I do move this amendment uh forward for approval. and ask for a second. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Um, we have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? I'll recognize council member Osman followed by council member Pomson. >> Yeah. Yes. I do really want to thank council member Wley uh for bringing this forward. Uh it's very important. We have heard many times uh MPHA come here and talk about you know how they don't have enough money for security and so on. So why not you know uh empower the residents that live there and make sure that um they are g getting together and talking about a way to stay safety. I do have over uh close 1700 uh 17 high-rise buildings which host different um uh safety meetings and there so empowering the resident organizing and and making sure that this tenant um high-rise tenants representative council is uh is uh doing uh continue to do the work they they they always did and I don't know if you are um subscribed in their uh newsletters, but they usually send out a wonderful uh things that's happening at the M Pa buildings, especially the high-rise buildings and the work uh they're getting done. So, fully support this and hoping that my colleagues will support this and it's it's very small amount of money. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I'll recognize council member PMano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm generally supportive of this, but was curious as to why it was designating funding to a specific organization. Um, why there wouldn't be an RFP and procurement process, though I appreciate if your answer is that a tenantled organization is uniquely qualified to do such public safety. Um, but I do have that question for the authors. That was a huge problem in last year's budget that I um kept noting and was disappointed to see it again this year. Um [clears throat] in my opinion, MA might be a better organization to implement this, but I don't know anything about this tenantled organization and appreciate that my authors do. So, um before I recognize council member Wanley to answer the second part of the first part of your question on the second um about whe uh you know MPHA um being whether MPHA is the right entity for for these resources to go to. Um, actually this is a part of a uh there this $50,000 amendment um is uh is comes is going to go right alongside within the CPAD existing base budget. Um a 75 100 Yeah. um a another um chunk of money that will go directly to the um to the Minneapolis public housing authority to do similar types of work. So, um going both to the the tenant council and then also the the public housing authority. That's where the base budget exists and we're taking a chunk of it just for the high-rise council. I'm going to recognize council member Wanley to discuss why um the to answer the other part of council member Palisano's question. Thank you CBP uh Chuck Tai. So right now um by HUD's requirements it requires attendant council which is our public high-rise council. So they are the only body as it pertains to doing these type of things with public housing who are authorized to do this under HUD. So, this is a partnership that already exists. It's separate from MPHA. They don't um they have separate funding streams per HUD requirements. These are completely separate entities. So, high-rise council would be carrying out this program. It would not be MPA. >> Thank you. That answers your question. Um not seeing anyone else in Q. I will ask the clerk to call the role on item number 19. Council member Payne, >> I >> Wanley, >> I >> Rainville, >> I >> Vita, >> I >> Osman, >> I >> Cashman, >> I >> Jenkins, >> I >> Chavez, >> I >> Chowry, >> I >> Palmisano, >> I, >> Vice Chair Kausski, >> I, >> Chair Chubtai, >> I. That is 12 eyes. That motion carries. Um we this is the end of the chunk of uh amendments related to safety. Um and so I think this is going to be a good time for us to take a recess before we begin the next set of um amendments. The next three after that are related specifically to addressing homelessness. So um with that I want to take a recess actually uh for about let's just say let's come back right at 3. Um, >> yep. I think I think we need a little more time this time. Um, >> well, let's do 30 minutes. Exactly. Yes, council member. Um, we are recessed. communications. We're ready to begin. Colleagues, welcome back. We are ready to continue with the markup packet, our next amendment. So we are now ready to move into the next three amendments which are all related to addressing homelessness. Amendment number 20. >> Council vice president. Do you want to know we've been joined by council member Ellison. >> Oh that's great call. Welcome council member Ellison. Um, amendment number 20 is tiny homes big dreams [clears throat] study offered by council member Chavez. Council member Chavez, please introduce your amendment and make a motion. >> Uh, Chair Chuck Tai, thanks so much for that. This budget proposal would earmark onetime funding in the CPED department to study the viability of a city-owned or and or city funded tiny home village as a strategy to address homelessness. Uh initially my office was considering uh looking for sources to develop next year tiny home villages in the city of Minneapolis as a way to address uh the housing crisis we're living in right now where many of our unsheltered residents do not have access to a safe place to sleep at night. After discussing this with the CPAD department, we figured that uh doing more work analysis to determine what this could look like in the city of Minneapolis is the more appropriate route. So, what you'll see in front of you is $15,000 for CPAD to study what this could look like in Minneapolis, whether it is city-owned and or just city funded. One of the reasons why this is really important, I'll speak uh what we are experiencing across the city of Minneapolis and in the Phillips neighborhoods here in South Minneapolis is that our residents continue to ask us as a city to find ways to address unsheltered homelessness. And what we have seen work across the nation, across different jurisdictions and municipalities across the country, is that tiny homes have been used as a method to reduce unsheltered homelessness and help connect residents who are struggling with homelessness with services and ultimately find access to a stable home to sleep at night. We know that we have the tiny village that exists here in Minneapolis. We also know that for the past few years, this body has expressed interest in building another tiny home village in Minneapolis. We also do not want to just wait for a nonprofit to produce that work when we can in ourselves determine ways that we can work with different partnerships, different organizations, you name it, to figure out how we can move this work forward. So, we're hoping that next year the C department can begin the work of figuring out how we can do this because our residents are desperately asking us for more solutions to address homelessness. And with that, I'll move approval for this item. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? >> Really? I'm not seeing any. [laughter] I'm surprised by that. Um, clerk, please call the role for the next. >> Council member, >> I Wsley, >> I. Rainville. >> Hi >> Vita. >> Hi >> Ellison. >> Hi >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> I >> Pomosisano >> I >> vice chair Kausski >> I >> and chair Chubtai >> I that's 13 I's that motion carries. Next up is amendment number 21 which is emergency shelter operations funding offered by council members Chowry Payne, Chavez, and Kausski. Council member Chowry, will you please introduce your amendment and make a motion? >> Thank you so much. Um, Chair Chug Thai, this is an amendment to allocate um $1 million one time from the local affordable housing aid fund to ongoing shelter operations and to Henipin County through our joint powers agreement. Um, and this amendment for today, I want to focus on the urgent need to sustain ongoing shelter operations for the providers who serve our most vulnerable residents every day. During the pandemic, emergency federal funds allowed shelter providers to expand hours, improve facilities, and offer a kind of low barrier trauma-informed care that actually helps people stabilize and move forward toward housing. Providers stepped up. They built 247 operations, increased staffing, open culturally specific programs, and created safer, more dignified spaces. But those improvements are built on temporary federal dollars. And now those dollars are expiring. Providers are facing severe fund funding shortfall, a fiscal cliff that threatens their ability to stay open at the level our community relies on. If we allow that cliff to hit, providers will be forced to make impossible choices. reducing hours, cutting staff, eliminating beds, or closing entire programs. More than 300 247 beds could revert over to overnight only. Low barrier shelters that serve people with the highest needs could disappear. Outreach and housing navigation, the very programs that connect people to permanent housing could sh would shrink dramatically. And this isn't just a hypothetical. providers to us are already signaling that without funding from local government, state government, um federal government, they simply cannot maintain their current operations. Um had the opportunity to speak with several providers from Catholic Charities, People Serving People, AGOT, Avivo, [snorts] and we know that if they can't operate, the impact falls directly on our city. more people outside in extreme weather, more encampments, more strain on first responders, and fewer pathways out of homelessness. We've made a lot of progress. We're making our shelters safer. We're providing better services. We're building out more innovative services and humane conditions. And we risk all of this being undone almost overnight. And while this is one-time funding, this paired with the 1 million we are already allocating within our proposed budget would be meaningful to mitigate the impact that we are seeing and keep more services online as we push our state legislator legislature to support the bridge to shelter bill to ensure into the future we have sustainable funding to fully address the fiscal cliff. Um, I also want to note that in the recent months, HUD has finalized deep cuts to federal funding for permanent supportive housing, which threatens thousands of motans who rely on programs for stable housing. In motan in Minnesota, more than 48 million annually supports over 3,600 people, including seniors, veterans, families, and people with disabilities. And the cuts could eliminate more than half of that funding, which means more of our community in our streets. And we're seeing a squeeze then at one end of the continuum of care where it's permanent housing and now on this end um of immediate shelter and shelter operations. [clears throat] And so this is one step that we can take today as a council. And so I ask you for your support um to continue or to support ongoing um shelter operations. And I know that my fellow co-authors probably have some words that they want to say, but I am also available to answer any questions that anyone [snorts] might have. Thank you. >> Um Council Member Chowry has moved approval. Uh is there a second? >> Second. Um, is there any discussion? I'll recognize council member Ellison. [snorts] >> Uh, thank you. Um, [clears throat] my colleagues know that I've been really really reluctant to support this. Um, I've seen that the amount has come down which is which is encouraging. Um, and I and I probably will support it for that reason. Um, and obviously I support, you know, want to continue to support shelter aid. Uh, Council Member Chowry laid out why it's so important. um you know as a part of effort to to to make sure that we closed a gap last year for Avivo Villages and uh and so this is this is work that's really important. I want to really caution against us pitting long-term affordable housing funding uh against shelter funding. It's a slippery slope. It will get out of control fast. And once we start uh you know doubling and tripling down on using sources that could go towards uh uh long-term affordable housing and be in play dollars that could be in play for 30 years and start putting them towards shelter operations that we know that are only going to last one year. Um we play a really really dangerous game and we start losing money really really fast. And so uh and so I I I take issue with the source. I but I I I understand the mission. I've been a part of of the mission of trying to to stop the bleeding here. Um but I do want to look at the you know I guess make a direct request to the co-authors um that that in the future you make sure we we need to see we need to make sure that the affordable housing trust fund and LAA becomes one of those things that we don't think is permissible to touch. Right? somebody's got to be a champion for that source of funding in the future and say, "Hey, look, uh uh you know, during emergencies, maybe we can start to consider this." Uh but it is a slippery slope when we start to see this as sort of like an open source of funding for other projects. I'll say it one more time just because I I want I want it to to to to really sink in. When when our staff uh put a million dollars towards affordable housing, that money stays in the community. It stays active. it stays operational for up to 30 years. Um, and so that's the risk. That's the trade-off. And of course, we want to keep people off the streets, right? Of course, that is absolutely imperative. Um, but uh uh but I just don't want us to get into the habit of of of pitting these two really important um priorities against one another. So, uh I I'll I'll vote for this here today because of some of the discussion I've been able to have with my colleagues and because I've seen the millions come down a bit over over the discussions that we've had. I appreciate uh uh uh that flexibility. Uh but again, can't can't reiterate how how how how much it concerns me to see this uh uh the affordable housing trust fund potentially be used as as a source uh moving into the future. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I will recognize Council Member Pulisano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um the mayor's budget already invests a million dollars for shelter operations. That was something I asked the mayor's office to consider as he was putting together his budget. We are a partner in addressing homelessness. Others really need to step up too, and we can't do this by ourselves. I won't reiterate all the things that council member Ellison said about this, but I agree with him wholeheartedly. Um, the supporting documents cite a federal decision related to cuts to permanent housing funding in the continuum of care. If this is the justification, shouldn't the money stay in the affordable housing trust fund help create more permanent and deeply affordable homes for people exiting homelessness or in jeopardy of experiencing homelessness? This feels like a trade-off between long-term affordable housing production and shelter oper and shelter operations. So, like council member Ellison said, we cannot pit these against one another. And I personally believe that long-term housing is the best use of these funds for the city past what the mayor already decided to invest here. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next I'll recognize council member Kashman. Thank you, Madame Chair. I'm wondering if Director Hansen is here to answer a couple of questions. He's making his way up. >> Thank you. Uh my first question was just about LAA in general if there were any restrictions or or clarifications around how it's supposed to be spent from the state. >> Uh Chair Chuck Tai, um Council Member Cashman, it's joy to be here. Eric Hansen, I'm the director of CPED. I'm going to ask my friends at the budget office for those technical questions about what we can use for LAAHA if you're all right with that. >> Yeah. Okay. And then the second question that I had was around the AMI requirements to receive affordable affordable housing trust fund money. >> The AMI requirements. So we have a we have a um I can answer that question. Council member um or chair Chuck Tai, Council Member Cashman. >> So we have a three we have graduated affordability in our programs. Uh the unified housing um uh the unified housing policy of the city has a 50% AMI. That's about I got to do the math in my head. I know 30%'s about about uh 30% AMI is about $38,000 a year for family 4. So give you a sense of how much >> deeply affordable is that 30% AMI. we will evaluate through the affordable housing trust fund which types of units are available to um different um income levels and then they will score points. So the the further the the deeper the affordability, the higher the higher score you get and the more likely you're to get funded. So you can go up to 50 30% um typically but it's it's usually a mix in in those buildings and it's and it's project by project >> and the projects don't just rely on affordable housing trust fund awards. They stack it on top of a bunch of other sources as well. >> Uh, council member uh, Chuck Tai, council member Kashman. Yes, the we are we part um, put a portion of it. We roughly about $40,000 per unit um, of support from the city >> affordable housing trust fund in each unit and it's costs, you know, probably about 10 times that much to do a unit or more these days. >> Okay. And then lastly, how much is in the afford affordable housing trust fund for next year? Uh, Council Member Chugai, uh, Council Member Kman, if you I'll have the budget office answer that question and I will go get the um, uh, the little spreadsheet. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We'll welcome Director Denzo when she's ready. >> Yeah. the author, council member Chowry, was saying that it was SE 17 million for 2026. That's in the affordable housing trust fund. >> Yeah. >> Um through the chair, uh council member Cashman. Yes. 17 million. That is um uh narrated a bit more on the CPAD page of the budget book. Um and LAA is part of that. >> Um we just recently had to work with CPAD to submit the report to the state about LAA usage. So to answer an earlier question, the categories that we report on for the state of eligible spending are emergency rental assistance, financial support to nonprofit affordable housing providers, market rate, residential rental property development is a different category, so never mind that one. affordable housing development and financing. Um operations and management for financially distressed properties, supportive services for supportive housing, emergency shelter, which was a change from the original um original bill, and then other projects subject to approval. Okay, >> thanks. Um just wanted to get a sense of how much of the affordable housing trust fund was being taken and it's, you know, a sign uh not super significant. uh amount million out of 17 million. Uh, I guess that's a debatable word to use, significant, but also wanted to point out that this falls within what Laha was designated for. It's it's spelled out. And I just wanted to add the comment that in the last few months as we've been doing engagement around TOPA in particular. Um, I've been talking to a lot of housing professionals across all different types of um, areas of work in the housing space and over and over and over and over again. The top thing that these housing professionals are telling me is that the biggest gap and crisis that we're in right now is the nonprofit shelter fiscal cliff um, for their operations. And I think to that and I think this budget amendment is responsive to that need and I'm going to support it today. >> Um, Director Hansen, did you have uh something for Oh, >> I do. >> Oh, come on. >> If I may. >> You answer the question for affordable housing. >> Sure. Um, if I may through the chair, I did want to flag in reference to council member Ellison's comments. Um, we should just note that the context for the affordable housing trust fund, we are going to be seeing reduced funding from our TIFF sources for that in the coming years. A pretty drastic drop off in funding is projected to come our way because those tiff districts are expiring. So, if the city does want to commit to affordable housing trust fund, um, it's likely that LAA will be the source for that in future years. >> That's helpful. >> Thank you. Um, anything else, Council Member Cashman? >> No. >> Wonderful. Um, next I'll recognize council council member Osman. >> I'll be quick. I think that council member Allison mentioned the importance of keeping this uh and not touching this money uh and make not making it habit and I agree with that or that that's wonderful job and this is a tool that we have been using that shows some s a lot of success in our community. Uh but also sometimes crisis come up. I think last year um Council Member Richy did amazing job or was it this year where we were dealing with um you know uh uh the cold weather, the encampments, the evictions, folks being outside, uh finding no place to go. So this will bring a lot of relief to the emergency situations that are that some of our most vulnerable people are are are dealing with. Um you know in this winter in this cold weather people need to go places. Um and I support this but uh um I do I [clears throat] do want to both highlighted that how important it is for dealing with things that come up emergency and also how important it is to keep this tool and keep keep this money. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next I will recognize council member Chowry. Thank you so much, um, Chair Chugai. And I just wanted to, uh, say in response to Council Member Ellison's comments that I think that they're pretty fair, right? Like this, there is there is 100% a trade-off here. And there is a picture into the future as our budget chair put forward is that um we're losing a lot of the funding that our affordable housing trust fund relied on um from TIF. And and I I spent a lot of time thinking carefully about this budget amendment and what the trade-offs were. And this this feels like one of the last opportunities for us to use LAA funding for shelter operations in this way because we're going to need to use nearly all of it um to fill the affordable housing trust fund which is an important tool and I know I will be continuing on the city council and that is something that I will keep in mind and it is a source that I do want to protect and I do care about. But given the current circumstances right now with the changes at the federal level, um it's not that like with with the loss of funding for rapid rehousing. It's not that like um they're not going to be able to build it's units. They're just not going to be able to maintain it. So, we're going to see immediate influx of a number of people who were chronically homeless risk falling right back onto the streets. And that's a now issue. That's not a okay like this is going to happen in a few years. And that's a squeeze that we're in. So, um that's how I came to this decision. I appreciate the dialogue up here about this and I appreciate the support from my colleagues, too. Thank you. Next, I'll recognize council member Ellison. >> Thank you. Sorry to jump back in quue. I again, this is going to be something I support today, and I've I've laid out why, but I also do think it's really important for us in this body to uh it it's it is permissible to be responsive to a crisis, but I also think it's important that we not kid ourselves in the process of what of of what that trade-off is. And so, I I do have one question I wanted to just get confirmation on. Um, uh, if Director Hansen could, uh, just I usually try not to answer, uh, ask questions that I don't already 100% know the answer to, so I guess I'm taking a bit of a risk here. But, uh, when we, uh, when we put when we put affordable housing trust fund dollars, um, into a project and we fill that gap, and it's about 10% of a project, that may sound like, okay, not the most significant amount of gap to fill, but uh, if we don't fill that gap, how many of those units end up getting built? Chair Chuck Tai, Council Member Ellison, it's um it's unlikely that that they don't get built, >> right? They just don't get built, >> right? So, it's 10%, right? We fill the gap up to 10%. But it's not like if we don't come in, that 10% gets filled somewhere else. If we don't fill that 10% gap, that is not a unit that hits our city. That is not a unit that serves the residents of Minneapolis. That is a unit that is not happening. And so, I just wanted that to be clear. um you know and and again crisis is crisis and we're seeing homelessness increase across the country. We're seeing housing prices increase uh across the country. Uh rent prices increase across the country. And so I think that it's it's you know again it's really important that we keep people off the street. But uh 25 years uh or sorry 20 a million dollars covers about 25 units. Uh that's what we can finance. Uh but that's 25 units for about how long? 30 years. um versus shelter stabilization. Again, very important. For how long? About a year. So, I just want us to be clear about what it is that we're trading here. Um and uh and so, um the last thing I guess, sorry, that's all the questions I had direct. Uh the last thing I'll say is, um you know, uh uh we don't have we don't have rent stabilization in the city of Minneapolis. Everybody up here knows that. I think that we should. we don't have it. So, the only thing that's stabilizing our rents is new build. And we've seen that market rate new build is uh, you know, kind of stalled out. And so, the only thing getting built is subsidized units. So, we take a million dollars out. We remove 25 units, right? It's for an emergency. We we we understand the cost, but I just want us to not sit up here and kid the public and kid ourselves about what counts as significant and what and and and what it is that we are trading. Because if we get to a place where we don't know the cost, we don't fully comprehend the cost, then I fear that in future councils, we're going to think it's permissible to take another million or another 2 million. And as the years go by, we're not only going to use lose a real dollar right out out of this fund, we're also every single year, year in year out, a dollar loses value, too. So, it's not going to be $17 million in the fund. And that million is going to go less far than it would the year before. So, I just wanted to say that again. If I wanted to make an argument against voting for this, I I feel like I could do that as well. I think we should do this for the sake of stopping the stopping the bleeding when it comes to uh uh shelter closures. I think that there's a I think that there's a real case for why we should do this, but there's also a real case for why we shouldn't and I don't want us to kid ourselves and I don't want us to kid the public. >> Next, I'll next I will recognize Council Member Chavez. >> Thank you, Council Vice President. I I kind of want to bring us to why we're in this situation. I think that it doesn't have to be this way. We didn't have to wait for this budget cycle to figure this out. I think it is incumbent that next year that the mayor and city council are working to address how we're going to use Laha dollars, for example, right? Why are we not working together to decide how it's going to be used through a special meeting through a or some other process? Because I think the big issue here is that the mayor's deciding how this is going to be used and also there's restrictions on LAA dollars, right? We can't use Laha dollars uh to backfill and there's certain restrictions around that which I have concerns of what that's going to mean for the future. Are we just going to keep the affordable housing trust fund at 17 million every year and then backfill it and then we actually aren't like doing more for affordable housing, but we're just using that state aid to stay at the same level, which I also have concerns because I think we should always try to keep it at $17 million, but we should also try to figure out how we're going to have shelter operations. So, there's just a lot of things that I want us to address. I agree with Council Member Ellison's concerns that there is concerns about us taking from the affordable housing trust fund, but I don't think that these need to be competing measures next year. I think this cycle and this this budget cycle, we should definitely pass this. But in the future, I would just recommend that the administration works closely with the city council and develop a strategy on how we're going to maintain the level of service that we have for the affordable housing trust fund, but also not lose the shelter operations that we need to do. Because I think that ultimately we need to do both, right? we should maintain what we have and make sure that we're not having shelter operations uh get impacted. And I'll name why that's really important. Uh we know for a fact that there is a lack of shelter capacity in the city and in this county. That is a fact. You can look at county's dashboard where there are at times in many instances zero shelter beds available at night. Now what happens if these shelters close down? That means that there is going to be less shelter capacity for our neighbors especially when we are in the freezing cold weather. I think that is something that we need to discuss as a city as a city council and that impact. We just had the encampment reporting uh ordinance in the business housing and zoning committee where staff reported that at least seven individuals that wanted to move indoors couldn't because there was no shelter capacity. And I think that needs to be acknowledged and we need to talk about what that means. That means seven individuals at a minimum because there's way more than that and we would have proof to to do that. But at a minimum, seven individuals could not get access to shelter because there was no space available. That is a systemic failure of city, county, state, and federal government. In no instances should no one ever have to be denied housing or shelter capacity because there is no access to it. Like that's just not okay, right? So, I think that I I agree with a lot of the comments that Council Member Ellison is saying, and I think part of how we address that concern next year is we all need to sit down and talk. Both the council and the mayor need to figure out how we are going to make sure that we stabilize the affordable housing trust fund, but also provide funding for our shelters, period. They should not be competing against each other. I think we have to do what we have to do in this instance because we want to make sure that our shelters are able to be up and running. But next year that those conversations need to happen so we don't have to wait for a budget to be proposed. We can just take action before then. So I just wanted to mention that. >> Thank you. And finally, I'll recognize Council President Payne. >> Thank you, Vice President Chuck Tai. Yeah, I just wanted to just share the seriousness to which I take Council Member Ellison's uh warning here and I think that we all need to internalize that. Um, as a city, we're really lucky to have council me council member Ellison's leadership out throughout these eight years of just that constant, persistent, and tenacious focus on housing affordability. That's how we're able to have this conversation is to have a robust affordable housing trust fund program and to be a leader in developing this type of policy agenda. Um, and so I think we got to take that warning very seriously. I'm grateful to have his support on this amendment, you know, given the current context. And I think one thing that I really want to take forward going into the next term is just a real seriousness around recognizing our context, recognizing the market conditions, recognizing the interest rates, recognizing the federal climate, and making sure that our housing policy is as responsive to those realities as possible. Um, and that that's going to mean that we all take take this very seriously. So, I just wanted to get that on the record. >> I'm not seeing anyone else um in queue. Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. >> Rainville, >> I. >> Vita, >> no. >> Ellison, >> I >> Osman is sorry. >> Osman of the shelter. Yes. I >> Cashman. >> I >> Jenkins. >> Nay >> Chavez. >> I >> Chowry. >> I >> Palmisano. >> No. >> Vice Chair. Koski. >> I >> chair Chugai. >> I. >> That is 10 eyes's and three nazs. That motion carries. Um, next up we have amendment number 22. There is a newly revised version of this that the clerks uh brought to our desk as we were restarting. Um, amendment number 22 has several parts to it. So, we're actually going to start with the top. Um, I'm going to This is reinstating emergency housing vouchers offered by council members Wanley, Osman, Chavez, myself, and Chug and Chowry. [laughter] Um, and Chowry. Um, so I'm going to I'm going to ask Council Member Wanley to introduce this amendment and then walk us through what the what each of the different aspects of this amendment are. Um, and we'll take them each up one at a time. >> Oh, okay. I was going to ask if there was a way to at least move them all together similar cuz they're all >> If you'll just describe those um one at a time and then we can take them all up together unless there's any objection. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. So last year this body funded a program that would have supported at minimum 150 residents who are unsheltered and get them into housing with uh wraparound services. I brought forth this amendment after numerous meetings and discussions with our partners at Henipan County and Minneapolis Public Housing Authority uh to learn how we could work together to best respond to unsheltered homelessness that we deemed as a public health emergency even as a body uh two years ago. The biggest takeaway from those discussions was that the city did not have to reinvent the wheel and they could fund a program that the county and MPHA have already executed and that demonstrated uh incredible success. emergency housing vouchers was utilized during the pandemic and was funded by ARPA dollars and nationwide um we saw that Henipin County um continue to reference it at one of as being one of the most successful programs at reducing unsheltered homelessness. um for several months last year. Um I received updates related to the implementation of those vouchers by MPHA and at the end of July they provided an update that they were no longer able to expend staff time on implementation because the city had not provided a funding agreement that would have allowed them to access the startup funding that council appropriated uh when we passed funding for this exact measure last year. And then a few weeks later, we all came to learn that the mayor proposed in his budget for 2026 to completely cut ongoing pro well ongoing funding for this initiative. And I'll save comments later about the impact of slow walking and then abruptly pulling out of multi-jurisdictional partnerships um later and how that impacts our work to actually deliver needed services. Um, but I will say ultimately that slow walking by the administration in terms of implementing these policies and these programs left at least 150 residents out on the streets this year when they [snorts] could have been indoors and receiving wraparound services. This new funding, however, restores the cuts and will allow a 100 vouchers to be fully funded in 2026. The funding for this comes from two positions. uh both well one from the mayor's office another FTE position from the city attorney's office and this is reflected in a revised motion that you all received. Um this program also uh needs ongoing funding and those two appropriated positions will help achieve exactly that. The other source comes from MPD's public safety service budget. We made this appropriation in consider in consideration of the work that's happening around offduty. Um for years MPD and ultimately taxpayers have been subsidizing the cost of offduty uh saig for MPD officers at the tune of about $1.4 million. Council has now given MPD the authority and the tools to start collecting those fees in 2026 and essentially [snorts] recoup the cost of that $1.4 million program. So this allows for almost a budget neutral approach for this um particular funding source. Also included in this motion is uh another motion titled 2025 budget amendment that addresses Mayor Fry's neglect of another critical antihomelessness program called stable home stable schools which is on track to have a 3 point uh $2 million funding gap and that uh gap grows into a larger amount come 2026 and 2027. I have no interest in destabilizing that program um because I think we all recognize it does great work. Um and I I will not attempt to pit this program of emergency housing vouchers against that one. That said, this 2025 resolution that's also accompanied with this motion reallocates the $1.4 million out of the 1.8 that we allocated back in 2024 for stable homes and stable schools. This will leave $400,000 in the 2025 emergency housing voucher appropriation, which were one-time dollars that MA was waiting for. Anyways, um I truly hope that the administration will not drag its fees and getting those dollars out the doors so that again MPHA can start doing that critical work and getting unsheltered residents housed and getting them the wraparound services that they need. Additionally, I have a legislative directive that asked for updates on this proposal since it's clear that the council will need to exercise more oversight in a formal way around how this program actually gets implemented and when the progress on it. So, with that, the order of these votes is is the reappropriation of the 2025 emergency housing voucher funding to increase stable home stable schools by $1.4 million, a legislative directive that monitors implementation of the program. And the last vote is ultimately the 2026 ongoing funding to reinstate the emergency housing voucher program. And with that, I move all three of those items forward for approval and ask for a second. >> Second. >> We have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? Um, council member PMano. >> Madam Chair, I'd be happy to yield first to other authors if there's anybody. >> Go right ahead. They'll get in quue. um together. There are a lot of um different parts of this. Let's see what to speak about first. Um this amendment along with items number 16 and 17 I believe total over $3 million in earmarks within MPD's public safety services budget. Um, this amendment along with future ones 36 and 37 cuts eight total positions from the mayor's office. Though there might be some future amendments to that. Um, though the revised version here actually just makes it seven positions. I don't think there are any vacant FTEEs in the mayor's office, but maybe we could get some clarification on that. I have to say that these feel um vindictive. I know that the administration has been in deep conversation though with the authors here. So I'd like to hear from staff. I see Margaret Anderson Kellaher here to say how has that landed from a staff perspective. Welcome back Chair Chuck Thai, members of the committee chair uh council member Palmasano. I'm going to start uh by taking us back to what the task was given to members of this administration when we started assembling this budget. The mayor made it very clear that there were a few top priorities. One was to lower the levy so the burden on renters and homeowners went down and we were able to do that by cutting $26 million out of this budget. Importantly, a second goal was to have no cuts to people who were in FTE seats. So that means no layoffs, no matter if that person is our line public service worker or in the city attorney's office or in the council staff or in the legislative branch and we did that. I'm proud of that work that we did. We've been having excellent conversations with Chair Chugai and her staff. In fact, we have agreed on 76% of these amendments. The administration, and I know that many of you have given as well on your amendments, the administration has contributed $3.4 million in ongoing funding already to the 38 amendments. You see, they have contributed eight over $8 million in one-time money to help solve the issues that we saw in these. We have contributed six vacant FTEES all from the Office of Public Service line of the administration to work on this budget. I plead with you. The go the the mayor's bright fluorescent line has been no layoffs to people in seats. We can solve these problems. We're not against the amendments. We've been working through them. We need a willing hand from a few more members of the council to work on that and then we will have a signed budget. That means we will do our very best to implement the items in the budget in 2026. That would be such a refreshing thing. Thank you. >> Well, thank you. Um I'm I don't have enough time to call back up Commissioner Barnett, but I am deeply concerned into what this cut in services for MPD would mean to our residents. I'm talking about residentfacing services that we could no longer provide. Um we already have in in speaking face to face through a campaign to residents this year, they they are struggling to get police services when and where they need them. sometimes when they just need to talk to somebody, a civilian, somebody um because of things happening in uptown for example. Um what staff will MPD have to lay off? How many how many civilians? Um these are all concerns that I have and I don't expect the commissioner to have any immediate stats on that. But the impacts of this are really steep to the operations of MPD, let alone the mayor's office. Since I see Commissioner Barnett coming up, I'll mention that I have less than two minutes, but would be happy for you to opine in general about the things I just said through the chair. Thank you, uh, Council Member Pomisano. I was just looking at the source here is the public service division. Um we've uh I think already there's been an earmark of 1.7 million [clears throat] for the uh non-fatal shooting. Uh now we're taking another million. Um I'm looking at the numbers and just trying to figure out how do we do all the things that um not only this council's asking us to do but the citizens are asking us to do. We're uh I think everyone here knows that um we're committed uh to all of um trying to fund all of the or find people for all 731 spots and we've made some progress there. But at some point the only area where we end up cutting and I know uh council president pay and others has said you know MPD and leadership gets to decide where those cuts are. Um and this is where we start to get into cutting our civilian staff which um is so important to the work that we do. This these cuts are just mounting up to a place where we can't do all the things. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. It totals over $3 million between these three amendments. >> Thank you. Next, Council Member Rainville. >> Thank you. I'm not going to vote for this and I'm going to give you three reasons why. The first reason I'm going to channel uh Alice Rainville, the first woman president of the city council who when uh this emergency shelter, the homelessness issues first came forth and the county did not carry forth their burden and the city picked that up would continuously say the more the city does for the county, the less the county will do for the city. So I suggest to you that the county needs to step up, not us. The second is this is just another defund the police movement. We are 40% of the staff we should have. We should have a force of 1,200 and we have about 600 and some. This is going to hurt our efforts for public safety. And the third reason is this layoffs from the mayor's office, this is just plain mean. Had your candidate won the mayor's race, you would not be doing >> what? We're not going to Nope. >> Uhuh. [clears throat] >> Uhuh. Did you just try a couple rounds? >> All right. Um, is there anything else you'd like to say? >> Is that it all? >> Great. >> Council member Wansley, >> thank you. CB uh Czech Tai, I just want to offer some clarification because there's also lots of conflating. So, the budget amendment between that we're considering today, non-fatal task force, those are all separate funding sources and actually it it funds the police. It does actually the opposite of what you're talking about. Um, it gives MPD the resources that they need to do to actually do their job, which is solve crimes and keep residents safe. Um, and we're doing that through non-fatal task force is a completely separate funding source that uses vacant positions. So, those should not be cuts. Um, additionally, uh, when we're going back to emergency housing vouchers, as I've highlighted in my original comments, should [clears throat] MPD be actually enact and implement the collection of offduty fees, you will have the ability to bring in $1.4 million. that is already what you have absorbed in your budget by subsidizing side gigs that only benefits the private and personal pockets of MPD officers and do not actually share to the public good around our public safety needs. So if you actually implement that there's a trade-off there. So you have the ability to actually replace that subsidi subsidization that taxpayers are currently paying for through a fee mechanism that actually placed the cost of that program on vendors that are looking to solicit those services. So I just wanted to name that. Um we have largely throughout this budget been as uh CA COO Margaret Anderson uh Kellerher highlighted we've been in multiple conversations around how to actually uh reduce the number of mayoral uh staffing cuts uh to actually uh get to a place where our priorities can be supported and also meet his red line. And we largely have done that. There is revisions that are coming forward that also addresses some of the following amendments. Um, and if it takes one FTE from the mayor's office and then one from the city attorneys out of the actual total number that we originally considering, I think that is an actual good tradeoff. And I get this budget means making some hard decisions. It this is a hard decision to make and also a hard decision is letting over hundreds of people sleep outside and say our solution to that is just wait till the county step up. And by the way, the county is stepping up. That's why they're a part of this partnership. Um, and they've been doing the heavy lifting of that work. So, we're saying we're here also as an equal player with you and trying to advance that work of getting people off the streets. So, I just wanted to ground that piece. Um, and the full package actually allows us to do both things. reinstate these vouchers cuz we wouldn't even be in this place of deliberating this budget amendment had the mayor implemented it in 2025 as we originally proposed to last budget cycle. He chose not to. So that is why we're here today. That has [snorts] nothing to do with vindictiveness. It's the mayor undermining council's authority and not implementing the things that our residents calls us to actually support like addressing unshelter homelessness that puts us in dilemmas like this. But this budget proposal allows us to make sure that we're meeting unshelter homelessness with actual proven um and databacked solutions while also supporting another critical homeless program of stable home stable schools. Um so with that I would encourage my colleagues to support the motion. Um and I see others uh in Q was going to plan to call the question but I see my co-author would like to speak. Um and I'll leave it at that. >> Thank you. Um, Council Member Rainville, are you in Q again? Was that on Okay. Um, Council Member Jenkins. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I just have a brief comment. I mean, one of the things when I first heard the the budget address, I think back in April, um, that, you know, the thing that really stood out to me was that we are not going to be laying off any staff. and and I I can't support any amendments that potentially lays off staff. Thank you. >> All right. Next, um I'll recognize Council Member Cashman, followed by Council Member Osman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question for Margaret Anderson Keller. I believe this uh amendment says that the decrease to the mayor's office is for a vacant FTE and I'm curious if there's a vacancy in the mayor's office. >> Chair Chug Thai, uh Council Cashman, there is not a vacancy in the mayor's office. That position is currently has an occupant in it. We are not [clears throat] sure if that was written before or contemplated before it was filled, but it was filled on November 10th. >> Was that the press secretary position? >> Um, that's the intent of what this that this position is supposed to be. Um, I mean, as of like last week, my understanding was that was a vacant position. Um, but I think there was just it things got lost somewhere and that was finances understanding and um, so I think this is going to be a thing we're gonna we're gonna have to come back and figure out. Okay. My second question is about implementation. Um, what prevented the implementation of the emergency housing vouchers this year in 2025? >> I believe that's a great question for Director Hansen. Director Hansen. The question is, um, what prevented the implementation in 2025 of emergency housing vouchers? >> Um, Chair Chuck Tai, who asked the question over here? >> Council member Kashman. >> Council member Kashman. Council member Kashman. My my apologies. Um, >> I'll go. >> I believe the question was what prevented the implementation of emergency housing vouchers? We were working with this. We were working with staff was working with the county and the public housing authority around um um setting up the so that's the first start is to expand the program. There's a $400,000 in that $12.8 million allocation to get set up for um onboarding new people into that program. We had um some legal disagreements around what is allowed under onboarding from the public housing authority and the city's attorney. That prolonged the debate between the two um organizations, the city and the public housing authority and the county at the time. That brought us into the summer. That's when we started to learn more about stable home stable schools. We put kind of a pause on the conversation and brought that stable home stable schools to the council with an with a um with an email and uh notification in um September and that's we kind of paused it. So we were in deliberations. We had a disagreement on what could be used with the funding and then we learned about stable stable schools and had the conversation the policy conversation with the council. Is there another way to get around the legal disagreements? For example, funding through a different uh provider of the vouchers or another way to get these services into the hands of the people who need it. >> Yeah, Chair Chugai, uh, Council Member Cash, I'm not comfortable answering a legal question on behalf of the city. >> CEO, I understand. Sure. Um, Council Vice [clears throat] President, council members. So, uh, my my recollection was that the the real issue was what under the public purpose doctrine, what could we use city funds for and what could we not use city funds for? There were some things in the program that we could and other things that that, you know, remember, we don't have the same authorities that the county does. The county has the ability and, you know, statutory authority from the state to to use funds for a much broader purpose in this area. We however don't have those sorts of authorities. So there were some things uh in the program that just did not meet the public purpose guidelines that and legal requirements that we have to abide by using city funds. >> Okay. And to any of the authors, can you explain the county's contribution to this partnership from a financial perspective if they have broader legal authority around the finances? Um, I believe that's a question to me. Uh, council member Cashman, when this body approved this last year, I'm more than happy after the like to fund you, not fund you, send you the very extensive memo that MA and the county provided where they lay out actually the cost per voucher, what is included administr like they laid that out. I believe I recapped it in comments, but they made it very clear what their contributions were and this and what the city side actually gets us. So, I'm more than happy to try to dig that up so that I mean, we don't have those staff here, but you could see directly from them what they laid out. >> Yeah, I I remember it and I had a conversation with MA about this as well where they explained the barriers that they were having uh to implementation and I'm just wondering what's going to change this time, what barrier, how are the barriers going to be overcome in round two? >> And just respond on that. To me, again, the fact that we only learned about legal barriers or any barriers in August, literally like a week before the mayor announced in his proposed budget that he was cutting this. Even NPA did not know based off of their conversations in good intent with the city this entire time in CPAD. They were not made aware there were there were any intentions to cut this program until it was announced in the mayor's proposal. So I think there were lots of misunderstandings of what happened because MPA was under the assumption because we made a 2025 appropriation that these dollars would be implemented that a funding agreement would have happened this year and that abrupt publication that's saying we're cutting all of this. They were never given a heads up and I think that leads lots of concerns around implementation and that's why we're bringing the legislative directive to point to what you're exactly saying. We want more monitoring and reporting on this. We trusted last budget cycle for the administration to carry things out and we landed in this position. So that is why we're asking for more regular updates on progress to stay attuned and make sure that those things are happening. >> Yeah. Thank you. I guess I um I'm landing on a no on this amendment. I just am struggling to see the pathway to implementation uh on the money. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next I'll recognize Council Member Osman, followed by Council Member Chow Troop. >> Uh, thank you. Hopefully we find a way to implement this. Uh, I know we failed last year to to get this money out. Uh, this is really, really important um, emergency vouchers uh, program. And let me just say this, you know, the conversation has been happening in the background. Uh there has been a lot of negotiation and I'd like the public to know that um there's a lot of compromise here that we're coming together trying to be fairly creative uh of how to fund this important project right uh we especially me let me just say myself the original proposal yes I have a lot of issue with it I think that you know um especially cutting the mayor's office. Um, taking a lot of stuff from the mayor's office is is is a a line that I draw. I wasn't expecting, you know, not supporting that at all. I want the mayor to succeed. I want him to be able to have the tools to lead the city to make sure that he's uh he's leading uh uh the city and he has all the tools that's necessary for him to do his job. And with that being said, uh, what's proposed right now is what's revised, what's revised, what's being negotiated, negotiated on the background. And I think it sounds great for me. We're not taking half soal of the mayor's staff at all here. We're not taking that at all. Um, and uh it's uh one staff um that's going there and also uh um someone from the uh city attorney office. Um so [snorts] the facts are the facts. Um sometimes, you know, you can't have all of it. You might get 90% of what you're looking for. you know, it's it's the way democracy works, the way we all should work. I think sometimes uh there are programs that are very important that we cannot just let it go uh because we like one program more than the other. Um and and and I'm hoping that this is something that that can be funded next year uh uh implemented next year. Uh so this pro important programs can can get uh to the resident and this services and overall I think that we came from long way discussion last couple weeks or so last week or so of where we at right now and this is something I feel comfortable voting for. So thank you so much. Uh, thank you. Next, I'll recognize Council Member Chowry. >> Thank you, Chair Chug Thai. Um, I just needed to uh talk about one thing that was brought into discussion because I think it's important because it happens often and it happened last budget cycle. This comment about defunding the police. That is so tired. That is so unnecessarily divisive. And I would just like to state some facts. The MPD budget in 2022 187 million. In 2023, 198 million. In 2024, 217 million. In 2025, 2129 million. Council Vice President, can I ask you a question? >> Yes. How much of this year's last budget did MPD overspend? Um, thank you for the question, Council Member Chowry. Um, as you stated, um, in 2025, the Minneapolis Police Department's budget is $229 million. Um, the the third quarter financial status report projects that by the end of the year, um, MPD will have overspent their budget by nearly $20 million. See, that's what we should be concerned about. That is the opposite of defunding the police. So, let's give it a break. This is a $1 million decrease. The police department is important. Public safety is important. No one's disputing that. But all of our other departments are important. And the police department is not an exception to the rules of all of our departments and our financial oversight. Absolutely not. And if we make changes and move around funding like we do for any other department, what I'm not going to stand for is that we're somehow going to take that decrease 1 million out of 229 and then this overspend, not even counting how much we're spending um in the settlement agreement. I'm not going to allow for that to be used as a tool to scare a community that public safety isn't available to them because that's just not true and it's dangerous and it gets us away from our goal which is bringing our community together so we can have accountable professional policing and good public safety services that don't have to be police. All of those things can exist al together. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I'm sorry. Let me return to my queue really quick. Next, I'll recognize Council Member Chavez, followed by Council Member Palmasano. >> Actually, I think we're talking too much about this item. I was going to Okay, well then I'll make my comments quick. I think the implementation about this is political will. I see no burden into implementing this program except for the fact that people want to see more homeless people out on the street instead of actually housing people. So, we need to approve this. I think it's important. We need to address housing and homelessness. It is a crisis and I am tired of the administration refusing to implement programs that this body funds. We are not Donald Trump. We are not the federal government. We are Minneapolis. And it is time that this administration funds programs that we implements programs that we fund. I am tired. So that I want to make that comment very clear. There is no reason for administration to never implement programs that we fund. And I am concerned the direction this budget is heading towards when we it sounds like administration is saying they're not going to fund certain things unless this council makes certain decisions which feels wrong and it feels political and it feels like some legal issues that I'm hearing out loud. Now the other thing I'll say uh is I am concerned about I mean the I hear some hypocrisy on this day is about folks saying they would never vote to lay off staff but they just voted to lay off staff and failed a little bit ago. So, I just wanted to name that publicly. Members of this body already voted to lay off staff and they failed. So, next, >> council member Palmisano. >> Madame Chair, um you've my colleagues have gone and called the question when only I was left in quue to continue speaking on previous things. We've been saying things that certainly ascribe motive to other people without being called out today. Um, but I am one of the things that I heard in this conversation was that people are tired, [snorts] exhausted, all of these things about the idea of defunding the police and they're $20 million over budget. I don't mean to let the cat out of the bag when we hear a full presentation from I think the chief of police on Monday, but police reform is expensive. Do you know why we're $20 million over budget on our police budget this year? I don't know the details. We will learn them on Monday, but mostly it's that we used to budget for critical staffing overtime with vacancy [snorts] savings. And to the chief's credit, to the credit of the hard work of our Minneapolis Police Department, we have increased staffing so much that we no longer have vacancy savings to pay for all of the kinds of overtime work we need to meet minimum staffing. And the second reason that we are $20 million over budget in the police department this year is all of the additional training that we need to fulfill all of the reforms that we have done. It is something like 156 hours per officer per year. And that's a good thing. And what that means is that we need unlike our positions where if we need to leave for another meeting, if we have to go to something, it just doesn't get refilled with another person, police officers need to be backstaffed with other officers. And that is another reason why there is incredible amounts of overtime and why the police department is $20 million out of budget because we are doing more training in a substandard not appropriate not a approved training facility every single day. Every single day. So we don't have the vacancy savings to pay for it anymore. And you want to bash police over the head for doing more training which is what we've been telling them in the first place. >> Bash police over the head. So, I literally don't >> I just don't believe that this is an appropriate conversation to try to hold the police saying we're going to hold you accountable. It's not the first or second time that I've heard it today that they are $20 million over budget. We will get those details on Monday. >> So, they're not defunded. [snorts] >> Council member Chavez, I'm either going to call the question or if you want to call the role. >> All right. I'm not seeing anybody. Thank you. I'm not seeing anybody else in queue. Clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. >> Rainville, >> no. >> Beta, >> no. >> Ellison. >> Um, this is a little complex, but I'm going to say uh no on 22C.1 and then I on the rest. Right. That's how it's >> I think you just I just all of C. >> Yeah. Can't separate. >> Just Okay. You can't separate C. >> Oh, you can't separate C. >> So C. Yeah, >> I'm uh then I'll be a no on on C on. >> Yeah. >> No on C. >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman. >> Nay. >> Jenkins. >> No. >> Chavez. >> Hi. >> Chowry. I >> palosano. >> No. >> Vice chair Koski. >> I >> chair Chubtai. >> I So on 22 A and B 9 4 Naz. Mhm. >> 22 C. >> 85, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I had eight to >> 856. >> 76. Yep. [snorts] Yep. >> 22 A and B, eight I's, five nazs. 22 C, seven eyes, six nazs. Does anyone need further clarification on the outcome of that vote? I'm not seeing that. So, okay. Both that motion all of 22 passes. Um, next we're ready to move to amendment number 23 offered by Council Member Osman. Um, which is related to underserved South Minneapolis communities opioid response. Council member Osman, will you please introduce your amendment and make a motion? >> Uh, thank you so much. I've been doing this uh amendments for um every year and [clears throat] it's basically just helping folks to overcome the addiction that we have in our community and having some kind of response where uh you know cultural organizations uh can can go and reach out to the folks and and help them with uh education resources uh awareness And um just uh something that the health department have hosted uh many years and um the mayor's office has uh hosted a press conference with it where we fund uh these organizations to tackle uh opioid. There's so many different ways we can tackle opioid. Opioid is killing our community. It's everywhere. And um you know, one of the wonderful programs health departments continue to do is engage residents in their in their locations and in in cultural lenses. And um this is one of those uh hopefully uh programs that can help our community. uh having you know health department lead last year where we tested this new suboxone um medication that will when folks take like 80% success rate and that's big thing. It's a new medication that is what the health department is leading and then this is also um a way to to respond underserved communities. Um I'm hoping we can implement this cuz last year we haven't not implemented this. Um the year before that we always did but this year hopefully we can have um administration and the health department uh continue to do the work uh they're doing the wonderful work they're doing already uh in the community. So I'm hoping that everyone can support this will definitely uh bring some kind of relief at least. >> [gasps] >> Thank you. Uh count and you've move moved approval. >> Yes, I moved for approval. Second. >> Um wonderful. Any discussion on this item? Council member Paul Misano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I see and trust how council member Osman has um used this opioid money in the past. What I am concerned about is why it specifically delineates only South Minneapolis and not North Minneapolis. And I apologize, I have not had a chance to look deeply into the um the details of this one. It just wasn't one of the ones that raised to my attention because we've done it in the past. So, can you help me understand why this is um specifically eliminating these kinds of same services for North Minneapolis? >> Uh not eliminating. >> It's It's not eliminating. >> It says for South Minneapolis in the motion. Well, we're not going to go south versus north or underserved versus underserve another group. This are >> something that I have done that you have voted for last four and a half years every year. Um and it's targeting um underserved residents that we see every day that are under the bridges that are dealing with opioid. Um, if you have a, you know, uh, problem with that, you can vote down on it, but it's not something that, um, should be controversial about this. So, North Minneapolis, I continue to support them. I love them. They are definitely get all the support they they can get from from me and I'm not singling anybody out. With all due respect, Council Osman, it says specifically in this motion, South Minneapolis, and I just want to clarify that it would be for all of Minneapolis. >> I can try to answer that question. Go >> ahead, please. >> Council Posano, I think one, I think it's important and maybe I can enlighten you if that could help uh with some knowledge of the situation, but the Phillips community, South Minneapolis, is disproportionately impacted by the opioid epidemic. So you see high overdose deaths in the Philips neighborhoods that encompasses W 6 and W 9, a big part of the South Minneapolis community. What we are saying here is that we want to make sure that this area in our city has access to services and reduction in the opioid epidemic, making sure that these underserved communities, no matter where they are in South Minneapolis, but we know that it is focused in the Philips neighborhoods that we have programs in place to reduce overdose deaths. That is what this is saying. We are saying that South Minneapolis staff can decide where in South Minneapolis, but we know that if you look at the data, the opioid epidemic is disproportionately impacting the Philips neighborhoods in South Minneapolis from our native community to our East African community to our African-American community. We are seeing it impacting our neighbors disproportionately. We're not saying that uh the rest of the health department budget can't go to North Minneapolis. In fact, it will and it should. We're just saying that we want to make sure that these services impact uh and and serve the residents of South Minneapolis as well. Um thank you. I uh we'll next recognize Council Member Chavez. >> That was But you're okay. Council member Vita. >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Palms. I really do appreciate you speaking up for the north side and um council member Osman is correct. We I have supported uh this amendment by him and it's not that it's about like the services don't go on the north side. I've just used other ways of getting the same sort of response from the north side for the north side like the trauma response grants or you know just funding through other streams to to get things done on the north side. I I just haven't chose the route of having something um earmarked through the budget process because I I personally feel like we have a lot of money in a lot of these departments that are um going to these services that we can use in that way versus this way. That's all. It's not like I don't I don't take it as a um a not on the north side thing. This is just an additional step that I'm sure these council members feel they have to take. But I I really do wish like if a person has a question about something that we don't have to be mean and answer it. It's just like it's a question. I mean, she's got questions, she asked her it, just say it back. Council member Chavez. All right. And I just want to point out that, you know, uh thank you uh council member Fita for clarifying that. Um, in the past you used to say Native American and East African and we were told by direction to make it um specifically for for for for this community in this area and and I and I welcome anyone who anyone to come with me and uh with health department commissioner and just really go spend few hours just walking around talking to the organizations seeing where people live and actually witnessing uh the crisis that we're having on on Philips area. That's just uh you know that's just some it will it might change your perspective of raising questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I do we have Deputy Commissioner Richie in the chambers? Um okay. Actually, I just think this is going to help provide some clarity about this. Deputy Commissioner Richie, if you can come up, if you can speak to um the context as to how this amendment came to exist in the first place. I know this is like the third or fourth time we're doing it again. So, um, if you want to start with what was the initial pot of funding the first time, what was the thing you were trying that the that was proposed that council member Osman offered the this amendment to the very first time. >> Thank you, uh, Chair Chugai and council members Heidi Richie. I'm the de deputy commissioner of health. So, the first time, so this has always been from the opioid settlement. It's been an earmark of $150,000 and I can't remember the language from the first time, but it was South Minneapolis and then there was I believe some demographic descriptors. Um the second time, uh same thing with some demog demographic descriptors and then now it's a little bit more broad. Um I will point out that since this is opioid settlement fund, it's a little bit different than when we put ongoing earmarks, we really do need to see it come back every year. Um and that is what is I think happening um with this one um this time around as well. >> Wonderful. And I I think what I'm trying to understand and I have I I can't remember if this is something that we have discussed in the past as we've been trying to figure out uh the the history of this amendment. But am I remembering correctly that there was a time when uh part of the use of the opioid um settlement money uh in the recommended budget was uh to it was on um uh opioid response in general and and of that chunk of money that year. Council member Osman wanted to your mark just a chunk of it to to come to South Minneapolis and and then um and then that kind of has continued over and over. Is that is that a fair um summary of the matter? And that and and can you also just speak to um the the geography of this city and whether we um are equitably spending o opioid settlement dollars um in in the parts of the city that where where it is needed. Chair Chai, members of the committee, the first time that this memark came about was when the mayor allocated um I'm not going to get the number right, but I think it was somewhere around 465,000 um to um go out into community. At that time, what we did was an RFP. We split it up and we ended up doing an RFP that was more youth prevention focused and another one that was more culturally cultural community focused. So that was that first round. Um and in terms of demographics, um I can speak to where we see disproportional impacts um in terms of population. So our East African community and our African-American community, our Latinx community, and then our American Indian community. um not in any particular order, but those are the four communities where we see the disproportionate impacts with American Indian being at the top. Um and so I can't speak to um those demographics and how they play out in in the city geography. Um I will say with our mobile medical unit, which is our um kind of big ticket, it's the uh largest pot of money that we have uh coming from the settlement fund. We have been very deliberate in making sure that we're working with um our uh communities on the north side and on the south side pretty much equally as much as we possibly can. >> Thank you very much. Um next I will I'm going to return back to Q. Next, I'm gonna recognize council member Chavez or council member Osman followed by council member Chavez. >> Oh, you're good. >> And I'll be quick. I just want to add myself as an author and that's it. >> Wonderful clerks, if we can note that. And seeing no one else in quue, I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. >> Rainville, >> I. Beta >> I >> Ellison >> I >> Osman >> I >> Cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> I >> Palmisano >> I >> vice chair Kausski >> I >> chair Chubtai >> I that is 13 I's that motion carries. Um, next up, amendment number 24, um, offered by Council Member Osman, um, is related to Autism and Water Safety Public Health Awareness Program. Council member Osman, will you please introduce your amendment and move approval? >> Uh, yes. Thank you so much. Uh, colleagues, uh, you have seen me come and pass a resolution here. All of us pass a resolution trying to really save uh, kids with autism. we have seen in the local news and where kids are uh dying in in [snorts] the 10,000 lakes that we have and and ponds and um this is just basically a program within the health department to to make sure that we are reaching out um uh communities and making sure that um we're developing uh water safety education material. Um, for example, one of the one of the material education is to make sure that the parents have some kind of a way to make sure that that they have a lock in their door the so the kid doesn't run and and and go inside the get in the water. So, it's very small amount of money and it's just really working with the community to do a public awareness and and education within the water safety with kids with autism. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there a second to council member Osman's motion? >> Second. >> Um, is there any discussion on this item? >> Clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Payne. I >> Wsley. >> I >> Rainville. >> I >> bet. >> I >> Ellison. >> I >> Osman. >> I >> Cashman. >> I >> Jenkins. >> I >> Chavez. >> I >> Chowry. >> I >> Pomisano. >> I >> Vice Chair Kausski. >> I chair Chugai. >> I 13 eyes. That motion carries. Next is amendment number 25 [snorts] which is labor standards co- enforcement funding. This there is a revised um re uh packet on this for you that um should be should be this one's revised right? Um, okay. So, this one is offered by Council President Payne, myself, uh, Council Members Kman, Chowry, and Ksky. Uh, President Payne, will you please introduce your amendment and move approval? >> Uh, thank you, Vice President Chuck Tai. Um, I've basically been trying to secure sustainable ongoing funding for co- enforcement since my very first budget in office the first year. Uh, it was fully funded using ARPA funds one time and so the administration suggested we not go forward with that. The second year kind of the same story, but we did a legislative directive to find sustainable funding sources and still funded it one time. And then the next year we through that legislative directive did as much due diligence as you possibly could but at the end of the day the administration didn't bring forward a funding solution. So we brought a funding solution forward last year uh that secured sustainable ongoing funding and then this year the mayor cut that funding pretty profoundly. So we are just trying to deliver on the promise that we gave to uh workers for many many years that this is important enough to be sustainable ongoing funding. Uh [snorts] so we worked very very closely with the administration on this to identify sourcing uh largely sources that are uh ongoing sustainable uh but there is a a one-time source that's in here that gets us to the full funding amount that we will have to revisit next year. So there is a lot of compromise embedded in this solution. So I hope I can get your support. >> Is there a second? >> All right. Is there any further disc is there any discussion on this item? Council member Vita. >> Thank you, chair. So, I I think this is the one with the red stamp at the top is the the correct one, right? So, this is saying that we're going to decrease the schoolbased clinics budget by $70,000. Um we're going to decrease the legislative department by $77,000. decrease the budget for performance management by 200,000. So, how what does this mean? What are these three departments going like school-based clinics? I'm extremely concerned about what $70,000 does. I know that's not even a really big budget to begin with for school-based clinics and that's a that's a um I take those visits in schools uh you know as often as I can and they need more. So to see $70,000 being taken from schoolbased clinics. Is there someone here who can speak to what the what these decreases mean for um for the city [clears throat] of Minneapolis, please? >> Yeah. So, these decreases um the the three sources identified that you're or the two sources that you're asking about, right? Health department and >> performance management. >> Uhhuh. >> The clerk's office. >> And the clerk's office. So, I'm going to invite up Okay. Uh this was the this was the product of some some the negotiation with the administration. Um I'm going to have director Denza um speak to the impact on health and um performance management. Then we're going to go to the clerk to speak about ledge department. Thank you. >> Thank you >> through the chair. Council member Vita. Um the schoolbased clinics also have a revenue source patient revenue which they're still spending down prior years. So they could temporarily shift some of this general fund expense over to that existing pot of money. They're still spending I think $201 from that source. So um it was uh our assumption that that would be workable for them since they do have about $4 million there. >> Oh, okay. Um, for PMI, this uh reduces their non-personnel professional services uh amount um to I think about $20,000 would be remaining in their uh professional services line. >> Okay. So, with $200,000 going out of PMI, this is only going to really be a $20,000 impact is what you're saying? No, it would be a $200,000 cut ongoing, but it would leave remaining about about 20K. >> About 20K. Okay, I got it. I'm sorry. >> And I [snorts] think we should have uh the COO speak to what the impact of that is going to be. Okay. >> Um because I would imagine that going from 2 220 down to 20 would be an alarming thing to hear. >> Yeah. So, go ahead. Um thank you, Chair Chug Thai and Council Member Wanley. This was actually off VTO. [clears throat] Woo! [laughter] >> Y'all are so messy. >> I am messy. [laughter] [gasps] >> That was so messy. Okay, come on. >> Okay, >> come on, S. [laughter] >> Fair. So, uh, PMI actually offered this because they are not planning on using this, but it is ongoing money and they feel they can handle this level of reduction. It also solves, um, this particular issue going forward. Um, and I just want to say, uh, Chair Chug Thai was also very generous in helping to, uh, offer up part of this gap through the legislative department. And so that is how we have gotten there. The other thing is we will continue to work towards um that 70k that is uh the one-time funding moving back towards more ongoing funding in the 27 budget. That's what we are going to try to work towards. >> Okay. And so what is the the the gift of the legislative department? What is >> then we'll go to so this uh council member Vita is referencing um item number two $77,040 ongoing uh reduction to the legislative department. Mr. Clerk, if you can just remind us where this is going to um how this is going to be absorbed. >> Uh thank you madame vice president and there is a correction I need to note on here. I gave you incorrect numbers. So, the council vice president asked if our department could come to the table and offer to fill some gaps, and we were happy to do that. And so, I gave you the number shown on the printed copy. Uh, it should be replaced by 2600114. Here's a great opportunity to shout out cooperation. That was brought to us from the administration by our budget analyst who's been watching all day long, Justin Carlson. Uh, 2600114 should be the line item. to correct that, that comes out of the clerk's office general, uh, from our contractual services. So, we're replacing, just so you know, the the number that was 500, that's elections. We don't want to cut further into elections, so we're moving it into the clerk's office through contractual services. We feel really confident we can cover that. >> Thank you. >> Yep. And I, as the clerk noted, um, I I did ask um him to make come to the table so we could help make this amendment work. Um, who is next? I will recognize Council Member Chowry. >> Thank you so much, Chair Chugai. Um, and just really, really thank you to the administration for working on negotiating this and figuring this out. It's so meaningful to me. Um there's a lot of budget amendments that are really important here, but I think this is the single most important budget amendment to me um this year because it was really hard to see the cuts that we saw to labor standards co- enforcement and I just really want to lift up the the work that real people in our city are doing to make sure that low-wage workers are not being taken advantage of and feel like when they have no one to go to, there is a place to go to. And it's something that pays off in in a way that is just multiplied because the education and outreach work that they're doing um with servers, with janitors, with construction workers, it teaches people in their workplace how not only to advocate for themselves, but when they see something going on that's wrong. when they see that someone else is experiencing wage theft, that their hard-earned money is being taken away, that is leaving less money for their their kids, for food, for healthcare, they can teach them, too. They can educate them, too. And it's a beautiful thing that we do as a city of Minneapolis. And we're leading in a moment where so much is being taken away from working people. And I also want to share that in the last contract that was made for co- enforcement, our partners in co- enforcement, SEUL in particular, built a lot of infrastructure that they never had to do before so they could adequately report to the city even better how they are spending their time on education, on navigation services. And in a six-month period, they have done thousands of hours of work. They have retrained their staff. They have taught them how to report. And I'm really glad that we are not cutting this down. And if if we see a future cut to this, we're going to come back and have a fight on this. That's just where I stand. That's where it's going to be. Co- enforcement is so so important. And I think we're going to see even better uh metrics to support the work that we're doing with our partners on this. And I hope [snorts] that there are no future cuts in coming years. Um because we have the strongest wage theft protection laws for a reason and we have to be able to enforce them so they count for people. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I will next recognize Council Member Palmisano. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I want to note that we only have three inspectors on the civil rights side for all of this co- enforcement work. Um, the education is important, but in terms of actually being able to move these things through and get people um, justice for ways that they've been frankly screwed out of paychecks and other things. Um, we need to be careful to balance that. I'm really not happy with the cuts that are in here, but I really also respect the collaboration between many people to come up with a compromise. So, for that reason, I will be supporting this um reluctantly for the cuts, but um happy for the collaboration. So, thank you. Thank you. Um, seeing no one else, um, in queue, I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I, >> Wanssley, >> I, >> Rainville, >> I, >> Utah, >> I, >> Ellison, >> I, >> Osman, >> I, >> Cashman, >> I, >> Jenkins, >> I, >> Chavez, >> I, >> Chowri, >> I, >> Palisano, >> I, >> Vice Chair Kausski, >> I, >> Chair Chugai, >> I, that is 13 eyes. That motion carries. Um, all right, colleagues, we are now at exactly the 10-minute mark before we have to stop. So, I just I'm going to do a like a look around the room because I want to get a quick temperature check. Are there people who want to have a um who have a lot of questions or want to have discussion on the next uh amendment, which is street vendors? Not see no head nods on this side. No head nods on this side. Okay, then we're going to take up street vendors. Um, okay. Amendment number 25 or 26, um, offered by council members Chavez and Chowri. Council member Chavez, please introduce your amendment and and move approval. >> Thank you, Council Vice President Chuck. Uh, Council Member Chowry and I are bringing forward for the second year in a row the street vendor grant and compliance program to make sure that we can continue to ensure that our street vendors get into compliance with our city codes and also have access to classes to make sure that they can get access to permits. We have seen the proposal from last year where a lot of our community members uh from the public were able to take their classes. many of them were able to pass and that was a really positive mo momentum for our community when it comes to street vending. We want to make sure that we continue this program for the year to come because we have been in conversations with many street vendors who said they want to continue taking classes because they weren't able to access them. Some didn't pass uh and this will allow us to continue the program for another year. We also are moving it into the community planning and economic development department rather than the health department after conversations with city staff. So, I would just ask for your support. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Um, I will recognize council member Vita for discussion. >> Thank you, chair. Um, I was just wondering how much money was >> your mic got turned off. >> Sorry. I was just wondering how much money you used in the last uh budget amendment for this program. >> Yep. If I remember correctly, it was $150,000. Well, with the organizations that we partnered with, they told us that that was not enough and they had to like not they had to like stop some of the classes. So, we don't want that problem to happen this time around. Want to make sure people have access to adequate classes. >> Who who were the part you remember who the partnering organization? >> Yeah, they were they're in George Square, but um >> Oh, so this was Southside um >> it was a Southside location. They were >> I can't believe the name, but it was Chef Lashell. He also shuffled a shell and it was root >> healthy roots. >> Healthy roots. >> Okay, got it. >> They would still have to do an RFP, a separate process again, but we want to make sure that the funding was not enough to to meet the needs of all the classes. We also revised amendments to say organizations because one of the things that we noticed with the program is that we needed to improve the culture culturally competent part where folks wanted to be able to speak in Spanish. So, we wanted to make sure that the proposal as written could be shared with two [snorts] organizations. That way, there could be a better partnership in someone that can take the classes and then how we can do the translation a little bit better. >> Okay. And I think we just need to do um a better job of making this a citywide thing because the feedback I got from this was people thought it was a southside only initiative and that it was specific to Lake Street. And so I think um just as a city and and departments we need to do better at um because we have vendors on the north side too and we have people that are interested in this. So I would just um like us to figure out how we you know we make it culturally competent and we make it but we make sure that people understand it's not siloed into one part of the city. >> Definitely this is written in no way to say it's in South Minneapolis. There will be an RFP process with with staff make sure to share that when it is made public. Uh we roll in a way where can it's not just one organization it's organizations would love for making sure that we have partnerships in north side and other sides of our city. >> Yep for sure. Thank you. >> Thank you. And um council member Chowry. >> Thank you uh Chair Chugai. I will be brief. I just want to highlight to my colleagues um we made a lot of progress with this. There was a lot of success. Uh we had many uh food vendors come and take the classes. Some had the opportunity to retake them if they didn't pass. And many passed, right? They got the certification that they needed and that was new for them. And they entered into a relationship with the city of Minneapolis that was one of trust and that could lead to their success as entrepreneurs. And even one food vendor after the class was able to access a food truck. So that's progress just in one year. Um, so I just I thank everyone not only for your support for this budget amendment, but your support in the ordinance change that council member Chavez and I worked on, the fee change and future support so we can keep on doing this really important work for food vendors across the city. Thank you. Seeing no one else in queue, I will ask the clerk to call the role. Council member Payne >> I >> Wsley >> I >> Rainville >> I >> Vita >> I >> Ellison >> I >> Osman >> is absent. Cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> I >> Palisano >> I >> Vice Chair Kausski >> I >> chair Chugai >> I >> that is 12 I's >> that motion carries. Council member Osman would you like to have your vote reflected on this? Yes, I please. >> Um, council member Osman I Oh, I don't know if I remember to mention this, but uh on the previous amendment um labor standards co- enforcement, council member Osman wanted to be included as a co-author. I can't Yeah. Um okay, we've gotten through 26 amend 25 amendments today. Um and and [laughter] that is so much more progress than we made on the first day of markup last year. Um thank you all for for being a part of making that happen. Um with that I am going to with that I am going to adjourn today's meeting. Our next regular meeting is on Monday, December 8th at 1:30 p.m. Our agenda for that meeting will include the continuation of our work on the 2026 budget. Thank you everyone. Have a good night.