[0:14] >> GOOD MORNING. WELCOME. MY NAME IS AWRN CHOWDHURY, THE CHAIR OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL [0:20] RELATIONS COMMITTEE. AT THIS TIME, FULL-TIME GOING TO CALL -- AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CALL [0:26] TO ORDER OUR REGULAR MEETING FOR APRIL 29, 2025. I WANT TO OFFER A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO ALL [0:31] COMMITTEE MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC THESE MESSAGES ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER [0:37] PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REAL TIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD TO INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY OF [0:43] OUR PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY. THEREFORE ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF THEIR SPEECH SO THAT [0:50] OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY CAPTURE AND TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. WE ASK ALL [0:56] SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THE SPEED THEIR CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS. I'LL HAVE THE CLERK CALL THE [1:03] ROLL. >> CLERK: COUNCILMEMBER PAYNE. >> PRESENT. >> WONSLEY IS ABSENT. VETAW. >> PRESENT. [1:09] >> ELLISON IS ABSENT. OSMAN IS ABSENT. CASHMAN. >> PRESENT. [1:15] >> JENKINS IS ABSENT. CHAVEZ. >> PRESENT. >> CHUGHTAI. >> PRESENT. [1:21] >> KOSKI IS ABSENT. PALMISANO. >> PRESENT. [1:26] >> VICE CHAIR RAINVILLE. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT. [1:32] >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE A QUORUM. I'LL REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE ARE USING [1:37] SPEAKER MANAGEMENT TODAY, SO MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN. AND WE [1:43] JUST HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY, WHICH IS AN UPDATE ON FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS [1:49] AFFECTING THE CITY. I'LL INVITE UP DIRECTOR KATIE TOPINKA TO [1:55] PRESENT ON THIS ITEM. >> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY AND COULD BEES COUNCILMEMBERS. HAPPY TO BE [2:01] HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON STATE AND FEDERAL ACTIONS. WE'LL START WITH AN UPDATE ON THE STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. [2:07] AND THEN PAUSE THERE TO SEE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND THEN TRANSITION TO FEDERAL UPDATES. SO THIS IS OUR LAST SCHEDULED [2:15] UPDATE FOR YOU BEFORE THE END OF THE REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHICH SENDS MAY 19th. I'M NOT [2:22] GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE IN-DEPTH. THESE ARE THE PRIORITIES THE IGR TEAM HAS BEEN [2:28] TALKING TO LEGISLATORS TO THROUGHOUT SESSION. WE'LL TOUCH ON THESE THINGS AS WE GO THROUGH [2:33] AN UPDATE ABOUT WHERE THINGS STAND TODAY. AS MENTIONED, THE [2:40] REGULAR SESSION ENDS MAY 19th. AT THIS TIME, MOST OF THE BUDGET [2:45] BILLS IN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE AND [2:51] MOVED INTO WAYS AND MEANS AND FINANCE AND SOME HAVE PASSED OFF THE FLOOR. AT THIS POINT. SO [2:57] THE NEXT STEP FOR THOSE ARE FOR CONFERENCE COMMITTEES TO BEGIN. SO THE HOUSE AND SENATE CAN WORK [3:03] OUT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BUDGET BILLS. SO THIS JUST IS AN JOVAN VIEW -- OVERVIEW OF [3:10] WHAT THE COMMITTEE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE. THE BODY HAS THEIR OWN VERSION OF POLICY OR FINANCE [3:16] BILLS BASED ON DIFFERENT TOPIC AREAS. IF THE CONTENT OF THE BILLS IS NOT THE SAME, FOR ALL OF THE BUDGET BILLS, IT'S NOT [3:21] THE SAME, THEN THE BODY HAS TO APPOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WITH MEMBERS FROM EACH PARTY. [3:27] BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS TIED, THERE WILL BE AN EVEN SPLIT OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ON THE HOUSE SIDE FOR EACH CONFERENCE [3:34] COMMITTEE. ON THE SENATE SIDE, THEY'LL HAVE A DFL MAJORITY. DURING THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE [3:41] PROCESS, THEY, WOO OUT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BILLS AND COME TO A CONSENSUS. AND THEN THEY RELEASE WHAT IS CALLED [3:46] A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT. AND ONCE THAT'S PASSED OUT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AND SENT BACK TO THE FLOOR, IT CANNOT BE [3:53] A34E7BD MENDED. -- AMENDED. THEY VOTE YES OR NO. IF THEY [3:59] DON'T PASS OFF THE FLOOR, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. SO NOW I'M GOING TO [4:05] COVER SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE DIFFERENT BUDGET BILLS THAT HAVE MADE THEIR WAY THROUGH [4:11] THE PROCESS. ALL THOUGH I'M STARTING WITH TWO TOPICS THAT HAVE NOT MADE THEIR WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS YET WHICH ARE TAXES [4:17] AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT. THESE BILLS DO, UMM, ARE ALWAYS [4:23] RELEASED LAST. THEY DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE FINANCE DEADLINES THAT THE OTHER FINANCE COMMITTEES HAVE TO MEET. AND SO [4:30] WE HAVE NOT SEEN TAXES OR CAPITAL INVESTMENT BILLS IN THE SENATE OR HOUSE YET. THIS IS [4:36] NOT UNCOMMON. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS WHAT THEIR TARGETS ARE. AND SOME OF THE THINGS THEY'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. SO IN THE HOUSE, [4:42] THE TAX COMMITTEE HAS A $40 MILLION REDUCTION AS A TARGET. WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO FIND [4:48] $40 MILLION IN SAVINGS. EITHER THROUGH CUTTING TAXES OR CUTTING EXPENDITURES IN THE TAX BILL. [4:54] TAX BILLSES DO HAVE TO ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE, SO THE HOUSE WILL RELEASE THE TAX BILL FIRST. WE [4:59] DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT'LL HAPPEN. BUT POTENTIALLY THIS WEEK OR IF NOT THIS WEEK, LIKELY [5:06] NEXT WEEK. THE SENATE TAX TARGET IS A $365 MILLION REDUCTION. WHICH IS, OBVIOUSLY, [5:12] MUCH LARGER THAN THE HOUSE'S REDUCTION. BUT THE SENATE HAS HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT [5:18] INCREASING REVENUE. WHEREAS THE HOUSE GOP HAS VERY FIRM I WILLED THEY'RE NOT OPEN TO INCREASING [5:26] REVENUE. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY REVENUE RAISERS IN THE HOUSE BILL. BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE [5:31] HEARD PROPOSALS FOR A NEW SOCIAL MEDIA TAX. WHICH WOULD TAX SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES THAT HAVE MORE THAN $100,000 -- 100,000 [5:39] MEMBERS OR SUB SCREEN SCRIBERS -- SUBSCRIBERS IN MINNESOTA. IT WOULD BE A SALES [5:45] TAX. THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED A SALES TAX EXPANSION. EXPANDING [5:50] THE BASE BUT LOWERING THE RATE. IT WOULD RAISE ADDITIONAL REVENUE. SO SOME -- THOSE ARE SOME OF THE PROPOSALS ON THE [5:56] TABLE. AND WE'LL SEE WHAT COMES OUT WHEN TAX BILLS ARE RELEASED. JUST AS A REMINDER WITHIN SOME, [6:04] SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ARE THE CREDIT THE CATALYZING UNDERUTILIZED [6:11] BUILDING CREDIT. GIVEN THE TARGETS, IT MAY BE TOUGH TO FUND THIS YEAR. WE'RE HOPEFUL IT CAN [6:18] MAYBE BE IN ONE BODY. EVEN IF IT'S A SCALED-BACK AMOUNT THAN THE REQUEST FOR. WE HAD A [6:25] HEARING ON A T T.I.F.F. PROPOSAL ALLOWING MINNEAPOLIS TO CREATE A [6:32] SPECIAL T.I.T. -- T.I.F.F. [6:37] DISTRICT. WE'LL KOFNT WORK -- [6:49] CONTINUE WORKING ON THEM. CAPITAL INVESTMENT, WE DON'T HAVE BILLS BUT WE HAVE TARGETS. [6:54] THE HOUSE HAD A SMALL TARGET ALLOWING FOR A $700 MILLION CAPITAL INVESTMENT BILL. THAT'S [6:59] NOT A VERY BIG BONDING BILL. THERE'S FAR MORE THAN THAT IN REQUESTS JUST FROM STATE [7:04] AGENCIES. AND SO IT WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR A TON OF LOCAL PROJECTS. WE HAVE, OF COURSE, [7:10] BEEN TALKING WITH OUR DELEGATION AND WITH CAPITAL INVESTMENT LEADERS ABOUT THE CITY'S [7:15] PRIORITIES, WHICH INCLUDE THE NICOLLET AVENUE BRIDGE, THE WATERYARD, AND THE 36-INCH WATER [7:22] MAIN. AND WE DO FEEL LIKE IF THERE'S ROOM IN A BILL, WE'RE IN A GOOD POSITION. BUT IT'S GOING [7:28] TO COME DOWN TO HOW BIG THE BILL IS. AND THEN, OF COURSE, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK [7:34] EVERY TIME WE TALK ABOUT THIS, CAPITAL INVESTMENT BILLS REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY. THEY HAVE TO BE BIPARTISAN. AND SO THAT JUST [7:42] MEANS IT CAN BE MORE DIFFICULT TO COME TO AGREEMENT. THE SENATE DOES HAVE ROOM IN ITS [7:47] TARGET FOR A LARGER CAPITAL INVESTMENT BILL. WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE LOCAL PROJECTS. [7:52] THEY HAVE A TARGET OF $27 MILLION IN DEBT SERVICE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A $1.35 BILLION [7:59] BILL. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING IS THAT THERE LIKELY WON'T BE A CAPITAL INVESTMENT BILL UNTIL [8:04] THERE'S JOINT TARGETS. WHICH AS PART OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE PROCESS, HOUSE AND SENATE LEADERSHIP AND THE GOVERNOR COME [8:11] TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH A GLOBAL SET OF BUDGET TARGETS FOR THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES TO WORK WITH. AND SO THAT'S LIKELY [8:17] WHEN WE'LL SEE A CAPITAL INVESTMENT BILL, WHICH IS STILL PROBABLY AT LEAST A WEEK OR MORE [8:24] AWAY FROM HAVING JOINT TARGETS. MOVING ON THEN TO SOME OTHER [8:31] ISSUE AREAS THAT THE CITY FOLL FOLLOWS CLOSELY. WORK [8:36] FORCE, LABOR, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS ONE WHERE THE HOUSE BILL HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET. THE LEADERSHIP IN [8:42] THE HOUSE IS STILL WORKING ON IT. THE SENATE RELEASED A JOBS BILL THAT INCLUDED AN $8 MILLION [8:48] INCREASE. THEY MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE [8:54] P.R.O.M.I.S.E. ACT THAT WAS PASSED IN 2023 IT WAS FOR FUNDING FOR RECOVERY [9:01] ON LAKE STREET AND IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. RECOVERING FROM THE UNREST IN 2020. IT ALSO [9:06] HELPED AREAS OF SAINT PAUL AND OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE, AS WELL. SOME OF THE ADJUSTMENTS AREN ARE AN INCREASE IN [9:15] THE LOAN AMOUNT BUSINESSES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR. THAT MONEY IS IMPLEMENTED BY MDC. AND HAS [9:23] HELPED A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES IN MINNEAPOLIS. THERE'S ALSO A NUMBER OF SOME DIRECT APPROPRIATIONS TO ORGANIZATIONS [9:28] THAT ARE LOCATED IN MINNEAPOLIS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR WAS AN [9:34] INCREASE -- BASE INCREASE TO THE MINNESOTA YOUTH PROGRAM. WHICH IS A STATE WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. THE MONEY [9:39] GOES TO LOCAL WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS, INCLUDING MINNEAPOLIS. THEN WE USE IT TO [9:45] FUND STEP UP. THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BILL. YOU KNOW, THEY HAD A SMALL TARGET AND SO THEY [9:52] CERTAINLY COULDN'T INCLUDE EVERYTHING. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL LIKELY CONTINUE BE [9:59] ADVOCATING FOR GOING INTO CONFERENCE AND THE FUTURE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN INCREASE IN THE PROGRAM. IT'S AN IMPORTANT [10:05] PROGRAM FOR US. THE HOUSE BILL IS BEING NEGOTIATED STILL. THERE'S A NOTE ON HERE ABOUT [10:10] DISCUSSIONS ON PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE. I'LL COVER THAT MORE IN A LATER SLIDE. HOUSING [10:16] ON TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK [10:24] THIS SESSION ABOUT MISSING, MIDDLE, AND ZONING REFORM. THERE WERE SEVERAL HEARINGS. THERE WAS A GOAL TO CREATE A [10:32] MINIBILL AROUND MISSING MIDDLE AND ZONING REFORM. THAT DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD IN QUITE THAT WAY. [10:39] IN THE HOUSE, THEY ENDED UP INCLUDING A PROVISION IN THE HOUSING BUDGET BILL THAT WOULD [10:45] GIVE -- WOULD REQUIRE THE STATE HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY TO GIVE EXTRA POINTS IN THEIR SCORING [10:52] SYSTEM TO PROJECTS LOCATED IN CITIES THAT HAVE DONE SORT OF PRO DENSITY POLICIES. WE [10:58] REVIEWED THAT LANGUAGE AND ARE COMFORTABLE THAT MINNEAPOLIS WOULD ALREADY MEET THIS STANDARD [11:03] THAT IS WRITTEN IN THAT PROVISION. BASED ON THINGS WE'VE DONE THROUGH 2040 AND [11:09] OTHER POLICIES. THERE IS ANOTHER HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS WEEK ON ANOTHER ZONING [11:16] REFORM BILL IN THE SENATE. AND THE SENATE AND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. IT'S A [11:21] SLIGHTLY SCALED DOWN VERSION OF SOME OF THE PREVIOUS BILLS. IT IS FOCUSED ON FROM VISIONS [11:27] AROUND REDUCING MINIMUM PARKING MANDATES, ESTHETIC MANDATES, SO [11:33] MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS AND ESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS. AND SOME [11:38] ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESSES, AS WELL AS SOME RESTRICTIONS AROUND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS. [11:43] WE'LL BE SHARING SOME FEEDBACK WITH AUTHORS THIS WEEK. I THINK SOME OF IT WE -- ONE EXAMPLE OF [11:51] SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IS RESTRICTIONS ON PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS. FOR [11:58] MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, THE CITY DOES REQUIRE FRONT-FACING WINDOWS. SO IT'S TRANSIENT [12:04] ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE. WE'VE TALKED WITH LEGISLATORS ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT SESSION, AND [12:10] GENERALLY PEOPLE SEEM OPEN TO THAT CONCEPT. THAT IF WE'RE [12:16] DEVELOPING HOUSING AS TRANSSENT ORIENT DEVELOPMENT, WE COULD HAVE SOME DESIGN STANDARDS AROUND THAT. WE'LL BE [12:21] CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE AUTHORS ON THAT. I'M NOT SURE IF IT HAS THE VOTES TO MOVE FORWARD. WE'LL SEE THIS WEEK. [12:28] AND BUDGET BILLS, THERE IS SOME ONGOING FUND FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND THE FAMILY [12:36] HOMELESS PREVENTION PROGRAM, WHICH IS HELPFUL. ON THE HUMAN SERVICES SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE [12:43] THE BRIDGE TO SHELTER PROPOSAL WAS HEARD. THIS IS THE FUNDING FOR SHELTERS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY [12:49] AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SHELTER FISCAL CLIFF. THEY HAD CUT TARGETS ON HUMAN SERVICES SIDE. [12:58] THEY HAD TO COME UP WITH REDUCTIONS. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO FUND THE BRIDGE TO SHELTER PROPOSAL. THERE WAS $1 MILLION [13:03] INCLUDED IN NEW EMERGENCY SHELTER FUNDING STATEWIDE. AND [13:09] THERE IS SOME BASE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM. OF COURSE, WE HAD BEEN ADVOCATING FOR THE BRIDGE [13:15] TO SHELTER PROPOSAL KNOWING THAT SOME OF THE NEW SHELTERS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY ARE FACING THE [13:21] FISCAL CLIFF. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS DURING CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. BUT THERE WILL NEED [13:28] TO BE SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY AND PROVIDERS ABOUT WHERE TO GO FROM HERE ON THAT. [13:38] >> DIRECTOR TOPINKA. WE HAVE ONE QUESTION, I THINK, ON THE LAST COUPLE OF SLIDES. BEFORE [13:45] THAT, I'LL RECOGNIZE THAT COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY, JENKINS, AND ELLISON HAS JOINED THE [13:51] MEETING. THE QUESTION IS FROM COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. >> THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I'M [13:58] REALLY GLAD THAT WE'RE, ADDS A CITY, ADVOCATING FOR BRIDGE TO [14:04] SHELTER. AND THERE'S OTHER STUFF LIKE THE SUPPLEMENTAL RATE STUFF WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT [14:11] ABOVE MY HEAD. HOPEFULLY THOSE THINGS CAN MOVE FORWARD AND PREVAIL. SOUNDS LIKE BRIDGE TO SHELTER IS IN REAL DANGER OF NOT [14:20] PREVAILING AND NOT HAPPENING. FOREST FIRE MY -- FOR MY [14:27] COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO LET MY COLLEAGUES KNOW AND THE PUBLIC KNOW. HENNEPIN COUNTY IS FACING A $16 MILLION CLIFF AT THE END [14:33] OF THE YEAR. THAT'S CORRECT? [14:42] >> CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBER, IT MAY BE IN THAT RANGE. >> THAT RANGE. THAT'S [14:47] $13 MILLION WORTH OF SERVICES THAT ARE GOING TO BE NEED TO BE CUT FROM THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF [14:53] ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS. AND, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHERS FEEL ABOUT THAT. BUT [14:59] $13 MILLION A YEAR SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY. LIKE A LOT OF SERVICES CUT. AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MAKES ME WONDER, LIKE, [15:04] IF THERE ARE CURRENTLY $13 MILLION WORTH OF SERVICES HAPPENING THAT ARE KEEPING [15:10] PEOPLE EITHER, YOU KNOW, PARTIALLY HOUSED OR ERM INNOCENTLY HOUSED OR HELPING THEM TRANSITION TO BEING HOUSED. [15:18] HOW MANY PEOPLE IS ESSENTIALLY SITTING THE STREETS IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THIS FUNDING? I'M SURE YOU ADOPT KNO -- DON'T [15:24] KNOW THE ANSWER. IT'S A QUESTION THAT M COMING UP FOR ME WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS. IT FEELS LIKE OVERALL I KNOW WE AT [15:31] THE CITY AND COUNTY ARE TALKING ABOUT BRIDGE TO SHELTER. IT FEELS LIKE ONE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY, I DON'T KNOW THAT FOLKS [15:37] UNDERSTAND THE, LIKE, LEVEL OF SEVERITY WE'RE SORT OF HEADING [15:43] TOWARDS. AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD THAT MAYBE YOU DO KNOW THE ANSWER TO, BUT, LIKE, THE BRIDGE TO SHELTER FUNDING [15:51] DOESN'T JUST AFFECT MINNEAPOLIS AND HENNEPIN COUNTY. IT'S NOT LIKE OUR HOMELESS POPULATION IS [15:58] GOING TO EXPLODE. DO YOU KNOW THE CLIFFS FOR RAMSEY COUNTY. HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT SAINT PAUL [16:03] OR THE SEVEN-COUNTY METRO. >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER ELLON. SO THE [16:09] PROPOSAL ITSELF INCLUDED ABOUT, I BELIEVE, $70 MILLION STATEWIDE. AND THEN THE PORTION [16:15] FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY WAS THAT $13 MILLION. I DON'T KNOW IF THE, YOU KNOW, PROVIDERS IN [16:22] LET'S SA RAM SAY COUNTY HAVE THE SAME SITUATION AS THE [16:27] PROVIDERS IN HENNEPIN. BUT I DO KNOW, YOU KNOW, STATEWIDE A LOT OF COMMUNITIES WERE ABLE TO SCALE UP IN TERMS OF [16:34] HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE SERVICES. BECAUSE OF ARPA FUNDING. AND ARPA FUNDING HAS GONE AWAY. [16:40] THAT'S WHY WE'RE FACING THIS ISSUE IN HENNEPIN COUNTY. AND I'M ASSUMING OTHER COMMUNITIES, IF IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, [16:47] HAVE SOME SIMILAR CHALLENGES DUE TO ARPA FUNDING NO LONGER BEING AN OPTION. [16:53] >> SO I GUESS LAST THING I'LL SAY. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION. FOR US TO BE THINKING ABOUT UP HERE. I MEAN, I THINK -- I [16:59] DON'T KNOW OF AT LEAST IMMINENTLY A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT WE COULD BE FACING AS A BODY. YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A [17:08] POSITION WHERE, YOU KNOW, I GET IT. IT'S COMPLICATED. EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE THE ISSUE. IT [17:13] WORRIES ME WHEN WE HAVE CERTAIN ELECTED POSTURING AS IF WE SOLVE THIS ISSUE AT THE TIME WE'RE [17:20] ABOUT TO HIT A $13 MILLION CLIFF AT THE COUNTY. IT'S JUST CONCERNING TO ME. AND IT DOESN'T JUST IMPACT US HERE IN [17:25] THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. LIKE THESE NARRATIVES [17:32] NARRATIVES WILL HUR R [17:37] RAMSEY AND SAINT PAUL AND THOSE AROUND US. I'M WORRIED ESPECIALLY GIVEN THERE'S NOT A LOT OF BUZZ AROUND THIS CONVERSATION THAT THE FUNDING [17:43] WON'T PREVAIL. IT'S A GOOD WAY TO SAVE TAXPAYERS' MONEY ONLY FOR US TO TURN AROUND IN THE [17:50] BEGINNING OF 2026 AND PEOPLE ARE EXPERIENCING EXPLOSION OF HOMELESSNESS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES THEY WEREN'T [17:56] ANTICIPATING BECAUSE NOBODY TALKED ABOUT IT. I GUESS I'M VOICING THAT. I HOPE THAT'S A PLACE WE CAN GET TO WITH OUR [18:02] PARTNERS AT THE COUNTY AND AT THE LEGISLATURE TO VIEW THIS AS [18:07] A PRIORITY. >> EAH. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. ON [18:15] FRIDAY, WE DID HAVE JUST A CHECK IN WITH OUR IGR TEAM. THAT WAS ME AND VICE CHAIR RAINVILLE. [18:22] AND THAT'S ALSO KIND OF WHERE WE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE REALITY OF BRIDGE TO SHELTER. AND ONE OF THE THINGS [18:29] THAT WE DISCUSSED DOING IS HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR IGR TEAM TO WORK WITH US AND [18:35] LEADERSHIP TO GET INFORMATION WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD OCCUR IF [18:40] WE DON'T GET THIS FUNDING FROM THE STATE. AND, ALSO, LIKE, WHAT STRATEGIES DO WE HAVE LEFT [18:45] AT THE TABLE TO CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE FUNDING THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY [18:54] SEEING IS ABOUT $1 MILLION IN EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDING. AND THAT'S, LIKE, A [18:59] DROP IN THE BUCKET. SO WE'LL KEEP YOU UPDATED ON THAT [19:04] CONVERSATION. AND I THINK, YEAH, NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO KIND OF SPEAK PUBLICLY. AND RAISE [19:11] THE ALARM ON THIS SITUATION. AND JUST WANTED TO ECHO I SHARE [19:17] THAT URGENCY WITH YOU. I KNOW WE HAVE HEADING HOME HENNEPIN, I THINK TOMORROW. I THINK IT'LL BE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION, AS [19:23] WELL. AND I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. >> YEAH. THANK YOU. JUST ONE LAST THING. IT LOOKS BETTER TO [19:31] HAVE $1 MILLION THAN NOT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT $1 MILLION DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT CLIFF AT ALL. RIGHT. IT SORT [19:37] OF IS KIND OF MAINTAINS SOME CURRENT LEVELS. OR DOESN'T ADDRESS THE $13 MILLION CLIFF, [19:42] IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY, LIKE, THE COUNTY HAS A LIST. AND I KNOW [19:48] YOU KNOW THIS. I'M SAYING FOR THE PUBLIC. 24-HOUR SHELTERS GONE. AH AVEVO VILLAGES [19:59] GONE. AT LEAST A THOUSAND PEOPLE RIGHT THIS MOMENT THAT'LL BE GONE. AND SERVE MORE THAN THAT GOING FORWARD. AND SO, [20:05] LIKE YOU KNOW, MY QUESTION IS, I KNOW THIS IS, KIND OF, LIKE OVERSIMPLIFYING IT. ARE WE [20:11] TALKING ABOUT A THOUSAND PEOPLE HITTING THE STREETS IN JANUARY?K [20:17] PEOPLE NEED TO BE FRAMING THE QUESTION IF THE COUNTY ACTUALLY HITS THIS CLIFF WITHOUT ANY KIND [20:23] OF READDRESS. >> NEXT I'LL RECOGNIZE PRESIDENT PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. YEAH. I WOULD UPLIFT WHAT [20:30] COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON IS RAISING HERE. AND JUST SAY THAT IN MY TIME IN OFFICE, THERE'S BEEN [20:35] SUCH A HOT POTATO GAME PLAYED ACROSS JURISDICTIONS ON THIS [20:40] COMPLEX TOPIC OF HOMELESSNESS. AND THIS WAS -- THIS IS A REAL [20:46] OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHT JURISDICTIONS IN ALIGNMENT. AND IF THIS IS GOING TO FALL APART AT THE STATE, [20:52] WE'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE WERE. AND I THINK -- [20:57] YES. IT'S EASY TO SAY THAT IT IS THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOMELESSNESS. BUT IT ACTUALLY IS -- THE CHALLENGE [21:03] HAPPENS IN OUR STREETS. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT. AND SO TO PUT A FINER POINT ON [21:09] WHAT COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON IS TALKING ABOUT. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES TO MEET THE GAP? THE NEED WILL BE [21:15] THERE. WHETHER OR NOT THIS LEGISLATION PASSES AT THE STATE. [21:21] SO JUST WANT TO PUT THAT FINER POINT ON IT. >> THANK YOU. I'M NOT SEEING [21:28] ANYMORE QUESTIONS. I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU, DIRECTOR. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. [21:34] IF I CAN COMMENT BRIEFLY ON COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON'S COMMENT AND THE MILLION DOLLARS. THAT WOULD BE MONEY THAT IS AVAILABLE [21:40] STATEWIDE. THERE IS A ADDITIONAL MONEY IN THE BASE. AND I'M TRYING TO CHECK ON WHAT [21:45] THE AMOUNT IS. I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IF I GET IT WHILE I'M MEETING, I'LL TELL YOU. THAT'S MONEY THAT [21:51] PROVIDERS CAN APPLY FOR STATEWIDE. IT COULD POTENTIALLY ADDRESS A PIECE OF THE FISCAL CLIFF. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE [21:57] THROUGH A COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS. WANTED TO NOTE THAT. THE SENATE BILL [22:09] INCLUDES A POLICY PROVISION THAT WOULD REMOVE THE PREEMPTION IN STATE STATUTE FROM LOCAL [22:14] GOVERNMENTS HAVING PLASTIC BAG BANS. SO THIS WAS PUT INTO [22:19] STATUTE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. MOSTLY PRESUMABLY IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS' PLASTIC [22:26] BAG BAN THAT WE THEN ADJUSTED TO BE A PLASTIC BAG FEE. THIS WOULD REMOVE THAT PROVISION. [22:31] AND WOULD ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE A PLASTIC BAG BAN, IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO. [22:37] IT'S IN THE SENATE BILL AND NOT IN THE HOUSE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT IN CONFERENCE. [22:42] THE SENATE BILL INCLUDES $2 MILLION FOR GEOTHERMAL PLANNING GRANTS. AND THEN BOTH [22:47] THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILL HAVE -- SO THE GOVERNOR HAD [22:52] PROPOSED A FEE INCREASE FOR WELL MANAGEMENT FEES. THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT IS MANAGED BY THE [22:57] MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. WE HAVE DELEGATED OVERSIGHT OF [23:03] THE PROGRAM AND SUPPORTS OUR WORK TO IMPROVE DRINKING WATER QUALITY AND THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET INCREASE WOULD HAVE [23:09] HELPED TO FUND THE TRAINING AND STAFF FOR THE PROGRAM. HOUSE AND SENATE TOOK OUT THE FEE INCREASE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE [23:15] IT IN THERE. IT SUPPORTS WORK DONE HERE AT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. IN THE HOUSE BILL, [23:21] THERE IS FUNDING INCLUDED FOR PREWEATHERIZATION WORK AND WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE [23:27] PROGRAM. THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT AREA. MOVING ON TO [23:35] HEALTH. THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE BOTH RESTORED FUNDING FOR [23:41] CANNABIS-RELATED PREVENTION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS. THOSE WOULD BE GRANTS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC [23:48] HEALTH DEPARTMENTS. BOTH BILLS ALSO INCLUDE FUNDING FOR FOOD SHELF PROGRAMS. THE SENATE AT [23:53] THE HIGHER LEVEL THAN THE HOUSE. AND THEN MOVING ON TO [24:02] TRANSPORTATION. BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE INCLUDE MONEY FOR TRAFFIC CALMING. IN THE SENATE [24:07] BILL, IT'S MILLION DOLLARS FOR CITIES OF THE FIRST CLASS, WHICH, OF COURSE, INCLUDES MINNEAPOLIS. AND IT CREATES AN [24:13] ACCOUNT. SO THAT IS POTENTIALLY COULD BE AN ACCOUNT FUNDED IN THE FUTURE, AS WELL. THE SENATE [24:20] BILL DOES REMOVE FUNDING FOR THE NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS RAIL PROJECT. AND IT MAINTAINS [24:26] FUNDING LEVELS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADVANCEMENT ACCOUNT, WHICH IS AN ACCOUNT WE USE TO FUND PROJECTS IN [24:31] MINNEAPOLIS. THE HOUSE BILL INCLUDES TRAFFIC CALMING MONEY. IT'S GREAT WE HAVE IT IN BOTH [24:38] PLACES. THE HOUSE INCLUDES IT AS A $5 MILLION DIRECT [24:43] APPROPRIATION TO MINNEAPOLIS. WE THINK IT'S UNLIKELY IT WILL STICK AT THE LEVEL IN CONFERENCE [24:48] COMMITTEE. BUT IT IS GOOD IT'S IN BOTH BILLS. THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL ALSO DELAYS [24:56] IMPLEMENTATION OF CLIMATE MITIGATION PROJECTS A POINT OF CONTENTION ON THE FLOOR DEBATE YESTERDAY. AND DID LEAD TO A [25:02] NUMBER OF DFL MEMBERS OPPOSING THE BILL. BILL PASSED OFF [25:09] THE HOUSE FLOOR YESTERDAY. AND IN THE HOUSE BILL, THEY INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT WOULD REQUIRE [25:16] DOING AN ANALYSIS OF THE BLUE LINE EXTENSION AS BRT RATHER THAN LRT. COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON [25:21] DID COME OVER EARLIER IN SESSION TO TESTIFY AGAINST A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED FUTURE -- [25:28] PREVENTED SPENDING ON FUTURE LRT PROJECTS. THIS IS SORT OF AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT. WHICH, [25:33] OBVIOUSLY, WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. THIS WOULD BE A STUDY AT [25:39] LOOKING AT IT AS A BRT PROJECT. [25:45] PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUDICIARY. THE BILLS DO INCLUDE FUNDING ON A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE [25:50] IMPORTANT TO THE CITY. INCLUDING PROGRAMS FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, [25:56] CRIME VICTIM SERVICES AND PHILANDO CASTILE TRAINING ACCOUNT. THOSE ARE THINGS WE'RE MONITORING. AS YOU CAN SEE [26:02] HERE, THE AMOUNTS ARE SIMILAR FOR THE FIRST TWO ITEMS. BUT THE HOUSE HAS QUITE A BIT MORE [26:08] FOR TRAINING IN ITS OMNIBUS BILL. THAT'LL BE SORTED OUT IN [26:14] CONFERENCE, AS WELL. TO WRAP UP, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF POLICY ITEMS THAT ARE EITHER MOVING OR UNDER [26:21] DISCUSSION. AND THEN CAN PAUSE FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, IF [26:26] THERE ARE ANY. THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ON PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE [26:32] BILL THAT WAS ADOPTED. SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ARE DELAYING IMPLEMENTATION FOR ANOTHER YEAR. [26:38] OR SOME ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALLER BUSINESSES. WE ANTICIPATE THIS WILL BE SORTED [26:45] OUT END OF SESSION NEGOTIATIONS AMONG LEADERSHIP. AND SO WE'LL [26:51] SEE WHERE THAT GOES. THE SENATE LIQUOR BILL PASSED OFF THE [26:56] SENATE FLOOR YESTERDAY. IT DID INCLUDE A PROVISION ALLOWING SOCIAL DISTRICTS IN ANY CITY [27:02] STATEWIDE IF A CITY CHOSE TO DO SO. AND SO IT WOULD BE UP TO [27:08] THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO PASS AN ORDINANCE MEETING THE STATE STATUTE. IT WOULD GIVE LOCAL [27:14] GOVERNMENTS THAT AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HOUSE BILL. SO THAT WILL HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT IN [27:22] CONFERENCE. THE ZONING REFORM I ALREADY MENTIONED AS A POLICY ITEM. I THINK WE'VE ALREADY [27:27] COVERED THAT. THAT'S ANOTHER SORT OF OUTSTANDING POLICY PIECE THAT IS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION. AND THEN LASTLY, ANOTHER POLICY [27:34] ITEM THAT IS STILL BEING DISCUSSED IN THE TRANSPORTATION AREAS AROUND MUNICIPAL STATE AID [27:39] DESIGN STANDARDS. SO THERE IS A WORKING GROUP WORKING ON POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE [27:45] STATE DESIGN STANDARDS. ESPECIALLY RELATED TO SAFETY. THESE ARE FOR MSA ROADS. SO [27:50] ROADS THAT WE PUT INTO OUR MSA SYSTEM. AND MR. HUGHES HAVE [27:57] BEEN WORKING ON CLOSELY. IF THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS ON THE DETAILS, HE CAN ANSWER THOSE. [28:02] THOSE ARE SOME OF THE REMAINING POLICY ITEMS UNDER DISCUSSION. BUT THE BULK OF THE WORK FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS WILL, OF COURSE, [28:07] BE ON THE BUDGET. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL WE HAD PREPARED TO PRESENT TO YOU. HAPPY TO TAKE [28:14] ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY. >> YES. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR TOPINKA. WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE [28:20] ON QUEUE HERE. I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. [28:28] DIRECTOR TOPINKA, CAN YOU SPELL OUT A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS $103 MILLION [28:34] FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMMING FUNDING. UNDER PUBLIC SAFETY. [28:44] >> CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBER, FOR THE RECORD, STEVE HOUSER WITH [28:50] IG R. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, WITHOUT HAVING IT IN FRONT OF ME, COUNCILMEMBER. THAT FUNDING [28:55] GENERALLY FUNDS A WIDE ARRAY OF DIFFERENT GRANT PROGRAMS. THEY CAN INCLUDE THINGS LIKE [29:00] RECRUITMENT RETENTION, THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO, LIKE, COMMUNITY SAFETY-TYPE WORK. SO [29:06] THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM MONEY WE WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR. IT KIND OF [29:12] RUNS THE PUBLIC SAFETY GAMETE. IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE IN MIND, MY GUESS IS, THERE'S [29:17] SOMETHING THAT WOULD APPLY WITHIN THAT ARRAY OF GRANT PROGRAMS. [29:23] >> OKAY. JUST -- AND THIS IS ABOUT THE STANDARD AMOUNT THAT THEY USUALLY GET? OR I'M JUST [29:29] TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF IF THERE WERE ANY SPECIFIC PROJECTS. I KNOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LEGISLATIVE [29:36] SESSION, GOVERNOR WALZ HAD SOME SPECIFIC PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECTS HE WANTED TO BE ADVANCE THROUGH [29:42] THE SESSION. I WASN'T SURE IF THERE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT. >> CHAIR AND COUNCILMEMBER, [29:49] WITHOUT HAVING THE SPREAD SHEET IN FRONT OF ME, I'D HAVE TO TAKE [29:54] AND LOOK AND SEE HOW THE AMOUNT COMPARED TO THE BASE. WHETHER IT WAS A REDUCTION FROM BASE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THE WRONG [29:59] THING ON THE RECORD NOW. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> OKAY. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BECAUSE I MEAN, I'M [30:05] LOOKING AT THE $103 MILLION. AND, OF COURSE, JUST THAT'S A [30:10] SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT. AND WANTING TO KNOW THE BREAKDOWN. ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING [30:17] AROUND, FOR INSTANCE, HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS. WHERE THERE SEEMS TO BE DIFFICULTY IN [30:24] IDENTIFYING $13 MILLION TO ESSENTIALLY HELP US MAKE SURE WE'RE MAINTAINING BASIC [30:30] HOMELESSNESS SERVICES AND PROVIDERS. SO JUST WANTING TO UNDERSTAND THE PRIORITIZATION OF [30:36] SPECIFIC PROGRAMS WITHIN THEIR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. LIKE HOW ARE THESE PROGRAMS EITHER [30:41] SUPPORTING PREVENTIVE EFFORTS OR -- AND JUST HOLISTICALLY AT [30:48] SOME OF THESE OTHER PRIORITIES WE'RE SEEING WORK FORCE, LABOR, [30:53] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S TARGETS OF REDUCTION. AND I THINK OF THESE ARE TYPICALLY -- AS YOU MENTIONED, GRANTS THAT [30:58] SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT ACTUALLY MEET THE NEEDS OF EVERYDAY PEOPLE FROM A HUMAN SERVICE [31:04] SIDE. SO WANTED TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT IS GOING INTO THAT [31:09] $103 MILLION. WHERE THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE SIDE. [31:15] >> COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY, DO YOU WANT A ADMINISTRATIVE FOLLOW UP? >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. [31:20] >> I'LL NOTE WITH CLERKS TO WORK WITH IGR. [31:26] >> AWESOME. AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I DID HAVE IS [31:35] REGARDING -- THERE WAS ALSO CONVERSATIONS AROUND IN THE [31:40] SENATE SIDE. THIS IS ON A KIND OF POLICY ASPECT. AROUND I94 [31:46] AND LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN STRENGTHEN THE POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. DO YOU KNOW WHERE [31:52] THOSE CONVERSATIONS STAND? I KNOW THERE WAS SOME LEGISLATION ADVANCE TO SUPPORT THOSE EFFORTS. >> CHAIR AND COUNCILMEMBER, MY [31:59] BEST RECOLLECTION ON THAT CONVERSATION WAS THAT PROVISION IS, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, [32:05] NOT INCLUDED IN EITHER [32:11] TRANSPORTATION ONMIBUS BILLS. THOSE WERE FOR THE STAND ALONE BILLS. IT DOESN'T MEAN -- IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THOSE WOULD [32:17] MOVE INDEPENDENTLY, AT THIS POINT, IN THE SESSION. AND UNLESS SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN WITHIN THE -- MY BEST ASSUMPTION [32:24] IS UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENS WITHIN THE NEGOTIATION IN THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO BRING THE THE TWO TRANSPORTATION BILLS [32:30] TOGETHER, THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT BEST OPPORTUNITY TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD. BUT FOR THIS SESSION, [32:36] I DON'T KNOW IT WOULD -- IT WILL PROBABLY PROGRESS. I CAN ALSO [32:43] LOOK INTO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. IF THAT'S SOMETHING -- GET A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL FOR YOU ON THAT, AS WELL. [32:48] >> THAT WOULD BE GOOD. I'LL NOTE THAT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE FOLLOW UP ON THAT ONE. I FORGET [32:54] THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE PROVISION. AND THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE, I KNOW A LOT OF THE SPORTS OWNERS OR STADIUM [33:01] OWNERS ALSO WENT TO THE CAPITOL THIS SESSION. ALSO LOOKING TO [33:06] RECEIVE PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR RENOVATIONS. WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF KIND OF WHERE THOSE [33:12] THINGS LANDED OR CONVERSATIONS LANDED, AS WELL. IF WE SHOULD [33:17] BE EXPECTING THE STATE LEGISLATOR TO BE ALSO PROVIDING FUNDING TO THOSE ASSET HOLDERS. [33:27] >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY, I CAN TAKE THAT QUESTION. SO THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DID COME FORWARD [33:33] WITH A REQUEST FOR, I BELIEVE IT'S AND $300 MILLION IN APPROPRIATION BONDS FOR XCEL [33:39] ENERGY CENTER AND, ALSO, REVAMP OF THE RIVER CENTER. THEY HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF INFORMATIONAL [33:45] HEARINGS ON THEIR BILL. AND AT THIS POINT, I THINK IT'S UNCLEAR [33:51] WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE. IF IT IS GOING TO BE FUNDED, IT WILL LIKELY BE EITHER IN THE CAPITAL [33:58] INVESTMENT OR TAX BILL, IN SOME WAY. I KNOW THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON IT. THE TEAM AND THE [34:07] CITY. BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF IT WILL BE INCLUDED THIS YEAR. I THINK IT'S RECEIVED [34:13] SORT OF MIXED FEEDBACK. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE [34:20] MINNESOTA SPORTS FACILITY AUTHORITY, WHICH OWNS U.S. BANK STADIUM, HAS A PROPOSAL FOR [34:25] APPROPRIATION BONDS TO FINISH THE SECURE PERIMETER THEY GOT INITIAL FUNDING FOR LAST YEAR. AGAIN, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATION [34:32] BOND REQUEST. AND THEY'VE AN INFORMATIONAL HEARING, AND WE, [34:37] LIKELY, WON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF IT'LL BE INCLUDED UNTIL THE [34:43] CAPITAL INVESTMENT BILL COMES OUT. I THINK THOSE ARE THE TWO PRIMARY ASKS THIS YEAR THAT HAVE [34:49] COME FORWARD. AND -- SO, AGAIN, [34:56] I THINK TO BE DETERMINED. BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, AN [35:02] ARRAY OF OPINIONS ON WHETHER OR HOW THE STATE SHOULD BE INVESTING IN SPORTS. AND THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IN [35:09] CONVERSATION. >> AND THEN FOR THE U.S. BANK STADIUMS' PROPOSAL, [35:15] SPECIFICALLY, FOR THE SECURE PERIMETER. IS THAT MOSTLY FENCING IN ? DO YOU KNOW? [35:22] IS THAT FOR THE FENCING. >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY, YES. IT'S FENCING THAT THEY ARE [35:27] SEEKING TO COMPLY WITH SOME FEDERAL, I BELIEVE IT'S HOMELAND SECURITY STANDARDS FOR MAJOR [35:35] EVENTS. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT MONEY. >> HUH. IS A [35:41] ADMINISTRATIVE FOLLOW UP. IF YOU HAVE WHAT THAT DEPARTMENT OF [35:47] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FENCING PROVISION ENTAILS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. IN THE THEME OF SPORTS IN [35:56] ATHLETICISM, ATHLETICISM -- SPORTS BETTING. WHERE DID THAT LAND? JUST SNOWING THAT WOULD HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT IN MY WARD. [36:02] AND JUST CONCERNS OF HOW THAT WILL RELATE TO THE ATHLETIC SCENE THERE. AND LOTS OF [36:08] THOUGHTS. BUT, YES. I KNOW THAT WAS MOVING ITS WAY THROUGH THE LEGI LEGISLATURE LAST [36:16] YEAR. NOT SURE WHERE IT ENDED HERE. >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY. IT DID NOT MOVE FORWARD THIS SESSION. [36:21] THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE HEARING. BUT IT DID NOT MAKE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE. AND I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK THERE [36:27] WERE HEARINGS IN THE HOUSE. I'LL LET MANY HOUSER ADD MORE. [36:33] >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY. THERE WAS IN ADDITION TO THE COMMITTEE ACTION THIS SESSION, RELATED TO [36:40] THE BILL, THERE WAS, IF I'M RECALLING, AN ATTEMPT TO REREFER THE BILL OUT OF COMMERCE [36:47] COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE IT'S CURRENTLY IN. OR OUT OF -- I WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. IT'S NOT [36:53] IN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, BUT THERE WAS A FLOOR MOTION TO TRY TO REFER THAT BILL BACK TO THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE TO TRY AND [36:59] MAYBE DO FURTHER WORK ON IT. THAT VOTE DID NOT PREVAIL. SO THE BILL HAD A NEGATIVE VOTE IN [37:05] COMMITTEE. IT CONTINUES TO STAY IN THAT COMMITTEE. UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER VOTE RETAKEN TO MOVE IT. SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO [37:14] MOVE IT OUT TO FLOOR ACTION THE SENATE ALSO FAILED. WOULD BE -- I MEAN, THIS TYPE OF YEAR, I [37:20] WOULD SAY THINGS ARE NEVER QUITE ZERO, BUT IT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY, I THINK, FOR SOMETHING [37:25] TO HAPPEN THIS SESSION. UNLESS SOMETHING -- SOMEBODY CHANGES THEIR MIND OR SOMETHING ELSE [37:31] CHANGES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. >> YEAH. I'LL NOTE THERE'S THE [37:37] ADMINISTRATIVE FOLLOW UP ON THE FENCING FOR U.S. BANK STADIUM. I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER [37:43] PROVISION THAT WE DIDN'T GET CLARITY ON THE NAME OF. I'LL JUST REQUEST THAT MR. HOUSER AND [37:48] COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY, AFTER COMMITTEE, MAKE SURE THAT OUR CLERKS JUST KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO. OKAY. I'LL GO TO [37:57] COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS THEN COME BACK TO MYSELF. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. [38:02] AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR TOPINKA FOR THE UPDATES. I'M CURIOUS. [38:08] YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE HOUSING LEGISLATION [38:15] THAT'S GOING FORWARD. BUT, YEAH. YOU TALKED, I THINK YOU MENTIONED PARKING SITUATION. [38:26] BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER BILLS BEING SUPPORTED B [38:31] COALITION. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE STATUS OF THOSE BILLS. [38:41] AND HOW THEY'RE PROCEEDING THROUGH THE HOUSE AND SENATE. [38:48] >> YES, CHAIR CHOWDHURY AND COUNCILMEMBER Y JENKINS. THEREN [38:55] SPORTING A PACKAGE OF BILLS AROUND ZONING REFORM AND HOUSING DENSITY. SO THERE WERE [39:02] PRIMARILY THREE BILLS. MAYBE A FEW MORE THAN THAT. BUT A FEW DIFFERENT BILLS THAT WERE [39:07] MOVING -- >> I THINK AROUND FIVE. >> YEAH. ONE WAS A PARKING MINIMUM. GETTING RID OF PARKING [39:13] MINIMUMS. THERE WAS ONE AROUND AESTHETIC MANDATES, A COUPLE AROUND ALLOWING D DUPLEXES AND [39:23] TRIFLEXES STATEWIDE. AND SOME AROUND MISSING MIDDLE AND REQUIRING SPECIFIC ZONING STANDARDS SO THAT CITIES WERE [39:28] ALLOWING FOR MORE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. SO FOR THE [39:33] MOST PART, THOSE BILLS DID NOT MOVE FORWARD OUT OF COMMITTEE. [39:39] IN THE HOUSE, THEY WERE HEARD IN [39:45] THE HOUSING COMMITTEE AND THEN MOVED TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE WHERE THEY DIDN'T END [39:50] UP HAVING A HEARING. IN THE SENATE, THEY SIMILARLY WERE HEARD IN HOUSING AND THEN MOVED [39:56] TO THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. AND ENDED UP NOT BEING HEARD THERE EITHER. HOWEVER, ON THE HOUSE SIDE, [40:03] THEY DID INCLUDE A PROVISION IN THEIR BUDGET BILL. AND THIS IS WHAT I REFER TO EARLIER. THAT [40:10] REQUIRES MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY TO INCLUDE POINTS FOR PROJECTS. SO THIS IS [40:17] HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE APPLYING FOR FUNDING FROM THE STATE. THEY WILL GET MORE POINTS, IF THEY'RE LOCATED IN [40:22] CITIES THAT HAVE SOME SPECIFIC POLICIES AROUND BEING PRO [40:29] DENSITY. THE LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSAL IS LARGELY THINGS WE [40:35] ALREADY DO. SO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT PROJECTS IN MINNEAPOLIS WOULD COMPETE WELL FOR THAT. THOSE POINTS. ON THE [40:43] SENATE SIDE, THEY JUST YESTERDAY SCHEDULED ANOTHER HEARING IN THE [40:48] STATE AND LOCAL COMMITTEE THIS THURSDAY. TH THEY'RE HEARING SOME OF THE PROVISIONS [40:53] IN SOME OF THE DIFFERENT BILLS. SO THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK, THE [41:00] LIKELY PROBABLY THE LAST HEARING ON THAT. THIS SESSION. IT'S [41:11] NOT ENTIRELY GETTING RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS. BUT IT'S SAYING CITIES CAN ONLY REQUIRE, I BELIEVE, ONE. I'D HAVE TO [41:17] DOUBLE CHECK THE LANGUAGE. ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT. IT AND HAS SOME REQUIREMENTS AROUND [41:23] AESTHETIC MANDATES. SO SAYING CITIES CAN'T REQUIRE THINGS LIKE BALCONIES OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER [41:28] THINGS THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED ON MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. AND THEN IT HAS SOME ADMINISTRATIVE [41:35] REVIEW. SO THINGS SAYING REQUIRING A CERTAIN PART OF PROCESS CAN BE DONE THROUGH AN [41:40] ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS RATHER THAN PUBLIC HEARINGS. OR SOME OF THE PROVISIONS. AND SO [41:48] THAT'S -- THAT HAS A HEARING THIS THURSDAY. WE'LL SEE IF THAT MOVES FORWARD. >> YEAH. THANK YOU. THE [41:57] INITIAL COMMENTS YOU MADE ABOUT POINTS FOR CITIES THAT ARE [42:05] ALREADY IN DENSITIES. I MEAN, THE GOAL, I THINK OF THE COALITION IS TO EXPAND HOUSING [42:11] THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND COMMUNITIES THAT ALREADY HAVE DENSITY GET MORE POINTS. THAT'S [42:18] NOT REALLY HELPING THAT ISSUE, PER SE. BUT THANK YOU. AND, [42:25] YOU KNOW, FOR MY COLLEAGUES, [42:30] THIS COALITION, AND HOPEFULLY MANY OF YOU HAVE SPOKEN WITH THEM. THEY'RE TRYING TO INCREASE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STATE. IN ORDER TO [42:39] BRING DOWN COSTS ET. CETERA, ET. CETERA. SO HOPEFULLY SOME [42:45] OF THESE BILLS WILL GET FURTHER HEARINGS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR TOPINKA, [42:58] I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION. IT'S GREAT TO SEE THE TRAFFIC CALMING MOVE THROUGH. I REALLY DISHEARTENED [43:04] TO HEAR ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE $194 MILLION FOR THE EXPRESS. [43:09] CAN YOU, MR. HOUSER, SHARE WHAT IT MEANS TO THE FUNDING BE REMOVED? [43:14] >> MADAM CHAIR, THE [43:21] $194 MILLION IS BEING RECOMMENDED IN THE SENATE BILL. THE HOUSE DID US NOT SPEAK TO THE PROVISION. SO THAT MONEY, [43:28] BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION OF THE DISCUSSION OF THAT PROVISION IN THE SENATE SIDE, THERE IS SOME IDEAS ABOUT OTHER MONEY THAT [43:34] COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED TO THE STATE RAIL OFFICE. SO POTENTIALLY CONTINUE THE WORK THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE DONE AT [43:40] THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT FEDERAL FUNDS WOULD POTENTIALLY BE AVAILABLE GOING FORWARD FOR THE [43:46] PROJECT, ALSO. THERE'S ALSO THAT DYNAMIC COMING INTO PLAY OF HOW MUCH. IT'S A QUESTION TO [43:53] THE LEGISLATORS OF HOW MUCH STATE RESOURCES SHOULD GO TOWARD FEDERAL MONEY THAT WOULD POTENTIAL I WILL NOT BE THERE. [43:59] SO THAT WAS THE KIND OF DEBATE RELATED TO THE PROVISION. I COULD NOT TELL YOU FOR SURE WHAT [44:06] WILL COME OUT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE RELATED TO THAT. IT WAS AN AREA OF THE BUDGET THAT [44:12] THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE HAD ACCESS TO. THEY HAD, I BELIEVE, THEY HAD A ZERO TARGET IF FOR THEIR COMMITTEE. [44:20] SO IT WOULD BE, IF I'M ANTICIPATING A QUESTION, IT'S HARD TO GUESS WHAT THE CHANCES ARE OF THE PROVISION. WHETHER [44:25] THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OPTIONS COULD BE TO LEAVE IT ALONE, ZERO IT OUT, OR DO SOME [44:30] SORT OF A CUT. BUT LEAVE SOME MONEY AVAILABLE TO THE STATE TO WORK WITH OTHER PARTNERS ON THAT [44:36] PROJECT. >> JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THAT. THIS FUNDING IS SEPARATE FROM THE MATCH THAT WAS THE MATCH [44:42] THAT WAS APPROPRIATED LAST MAY. OR IS IT THE SAME AMOUNT? I [44:50] KNOW IN 2023, I THINK IT WAS AROUND THE SAME FIGURE, $194. >> I BELIEVE IT'S THE SAME [44:55] AMOUNT, MADAM CHAIR. THE $194 MILLION PASSED IN THE 2023 BUDGET FOR '24-'25.. [45:02] >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IF WE DON'T HAVE A LOCAL MATCH AT THAT LEVEL, WE WON'T -- THERE'S NOT A [45:08] CHANCE FOR US TO GET FEDERAL GRANTS. EVEN IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY IS NOT [45:15] FRIENDLY TO MINNESOTA OR STATES LIKE OURS. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? [45:21] SHOULD THIS EVEN BEFORE CONFERENCE NOT PASS, LIKE, DOES IT MEAN DESIGN WORK JUST STOPS? DOES THAT MEAN THE PROJECT TALL [45:29] PROJECT STALLS OUT? WILL WE NOT SEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN MINNESOTA AND DULUTH. >> I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT COULD [45:35] KILL IT OUTRIGHT. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION THERE WAS POTENTIALLY OTHER OPTIONS FOR THE STATE TO CONTINUE WORK. OBVIOUSLY NOT AT [45:43] THE SAME KIND OF OF A LEVEL THAT THE $194 MILLION APPROPRIATION [45:49] COULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOR. BUT I CAN GET BACK TO THE [45:54] COMMITTEE ON MORE OF THE SPECIFICS OF, LIKE, IF THIS THEN THAT KIND OF SCENARIOS. IF THIS [46:01] IS ZEROED OUT, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE TO CONTINUE WORK ON THAT PROJECT. >> THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR [46:07] ADMINISTRATIVE FOLLOW UP. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A CITY COUNCIL [46:15] A BOARD AROUND THE NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS AND OUR PART OF THE DISCUSSION, I THINK, WITH VICE CHAIR RAINVILLE, YOU'RE THE [46:20] MEMBER ON THAT. THE OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE TRANSPORTATION [46:27] PART, THIS STUDY FOR BRT BLUE LINE EXTENSION INSTEAD OF LRT. [46:32] IS THERE A DOLLAR AMOUNT ATTACHED TO THAT? >> MADAM CHAIR, I DO NOT [46:42] BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE IT'S A DIRECTIVE OF THE MET COUNCIL TO [46:47] DO SO THE STUDY. I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU. [46:54] >> OKAY. AND IS THE THOUGHT BEHIND IT TO KIND OF PUT A PAUSE IN THE WORK THAT'S HAPPENING. [47:00] OR THE WORK WILL CONTINUE AND THE STUDY WILL HAPPEN CONCURRENTLY. >> MADAM CHAIR. MY [47:06] UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE WORK WILL CONTINUE. NOTHING WOULD BE DELAYED BY DOING THIS. IT WOULD [47:11] BE A DIRECTIVE TO THE MET COUNCIL TO STUDY THE VIABILITY AND THE OPTIONS OF BRT AS AN [47:20] ALTERNATIVE TO LRT. >> YES. AND MY LAST QUESTION, I HEARD SOME OF THE RUMBLINGS OF [47:27] THE DELAY OF CLIMATE MITIGATION RELATED TO ROAD PROJECTS. FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE REST OF THE [47:32] BODY, DETAIL OUT WHAT CLIMATE MITIGATION IN THE SCENARIO MEANS. >> SO IN THE 2023 LEGISLATIVE [47:39] SESSION, THE TRANSPORTATION BILL INCLUDED A PROCESS WHERE [47:45] WHENEVER A ROAD PROJECT IS, I BELIEVE THE CRITERIA -- THE BASIC CRITERIA IF IT'S LOOKING [47:50] TO EXPAND EITHER LANES OR SOMETHING THAT IS SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT TO THE VOLUME OF [47:56] TRAFFIC. OR PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE TRAFFIC ON A ROADWAY, THESE STUDIES WOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED [48:01] AT TO DISCOVER WAYS TO MITIGATE THE INCREASED C CARBON AND [48:07] GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THE PROJECT WOULD POTENTIALLY PRODUCE. IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE SAYING THAT THE [48:13] PROJECT COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. IT WOULD ASK THAT THE PROJECT THEN -- THE PROJECT LEADERS [48:19] IDENTIFY THEN HOW TO OFFSET THE INCREASES TO THE GREENHOUSE GASES. WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED [48:25] IN THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION OMNIBUS BILL IS TO DELAY -- AND [48:32] THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT ON THE HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE YESTERDAY ON THE TRANSPORTATION BILL. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT, WOULD BE AN [48:40] APPROXIMATELY THREE-YEAR DELAY. LEGALLY THAT POLICY IS IN EFFECT NOW. IT IS LAW. IT WENT INTO [48:46] EFFECT OF FEBRUARY THIS YEAR. IT WOULD BE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND WHETHER TO [48:52] CALL IT A DELAY OR A HALT. IT'S TECHNICALLY THE LAW NOW. AND SO [48:59] THIS, I THINK, MADAM CHAIR, THAT KIND OF ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. OR YOUR QUESTION. SO, YES. [49:05] THAT IS WHAT THE LAW IS DOING. AND THEN THIS WOULD BE A PAUSE [49:11] OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS. AND THEN THE ADVOCATES HAVE SAID [49:17] THIS PAUSE WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME OF THE SUBSTITUTI -- DISCUSSION OF HOW DO YOU FIND [49:23] THE OFFSETS. WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S CORRECT METRICS TO CALCULATE WHAT THE IMPACTS OF A PROJECT WOULD HAVE. THAT SORT [49:30] OF THING. >> AND THE SENATE HASN'T ENTERED [49:36] INTO THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE PROVISION YET. I IMAGINE THERE'S PRETTY STEEP [49:41] OPPOSITION. >> MADAM CHAIR, MY ASSUMPTION, THIS HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN [49:48] THE SENATE SIDE. IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE SENATE OMNIBUS [49:53] BILL. I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE SENATE AGREED TO. HOWEVER, [50:01] GIVEN THE CURRENT SITUATION AND FINDING AN SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT ON SOME OF THE BILLS, [50:06] I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S A VERSION OF THIS COULDN'T GET DONE. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF [50:12] OPTIONS. THESE ARE TWO APPROACHES THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT TOGETHER. SO IT'S HARD TO -- IT'S A HARD ONE TO [50:18] ANTICIPATE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. MY COMMENT ON THAT, JUST TO PASS ALONG IS, [50:23] I THINK THE CLIMATE MITIGATION LEGISLATION THAT PASSED IS REALLY CRITICAL FOR THE WAYS IN [50:29] WHICH MINNESOTA CAN SCALE ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE ON A STATE LEVEL. WITHOUT THAT DATA [50:34] AND INFORMATION TO OFFSET, LIKE, THE NUMBER ONE WAY THAT WE MAKE [50:40] EMISSIONS AS A STATE. EVEN FOR THREE YEARS. ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE SEEING THE TEMPERATURE [50:45] RISE EVERY SINGLE YEAR. I THINK WE HIT 1.5 CELSIUS THIS PAST [50:50] YEAR. IS REALLY, REALLY UNSETTLING. AND I DON'T THINK IN LINE WITH THE GOALS OF THE [50:57] CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. SO I APPRECIATE JUST YOU GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THAT. AND THEN I WILL GO TO [51:03] COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE [51:10] FIRST IS FOR YOU, MR. HOUSER. IT'S ABOUT MSA ROUTES. THERE'S MORE AND MORE INTEREST -- I [51:17] DON'T KNOW. THERE'S MORE AND MORE VOCAL INTEREST IN TRAFFIC CALMING ON OUR CITIES MSA'S [51:24] ROUTES. IN FACT, WE'RE WORKING ON ONE THIS YEAR AS PART OF THE TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IN THE CITY. I [51:30] REMEMBER HEARING THAT, UMM, BASED ON THE COMMITTEES' WORK, DO YOU FORESEE NEW DESIGN [51:35] STANDARDS THAT MIGHT ALLOW FOR THESE KINDS OF FEATURES IN THE FUTURE? I T DON'T THINK [51:46] WE'RE WORKING TO FULLY REDESIGN THE MSA ROUTES. THE REASON WHY THEY'RE MSA ROUTES IS IT'S MEANT [51:52] TO MOVE TRUCKS, TRAFFIC, EMERGENCY VEHICLES FASTER. IN [51:57] OUR TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN, ONE OF OUR INITIATIVES WE HAVE [52:04] IS TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL CHANGES THE CITY MAY REQUEST TO MUNICIPAL STATE AID ROUTES TO [52:09] BETTER ALIGN WITH OUR UPDATED STREET TYPOLOGIES. BECAUSE I [52:14] KNOW YOU'RE FOLLOWING THIS COMMITTEE'S WORK, IS THIS GOING IN OUR DIRECTION? WITH STATE LEGISLATORS INTERESTED IN THIS [52:22] TYPE OF THING OR GOING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION? >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, [52:27] COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO. I WOULD SAY, IN GENERAL, IT'S LIKELY GOING IN OUR DIRECTION. [52:34] I'M CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC THAT AN AGREEMENT CAN BE STRUCK TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THE PURPOSE OF THE MSA SYSTEM [52:43] WITH THE SAFETY NEEDS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED FOR, YOU KNOW, NONVEHICLE. YOU KNOW, MOVEMENT [52:50] IN AND AROUND THOSE INTERSECTIONS, ESPECIALLY. AND SO THE CITY IS, YOU KNOW, MYSELF [52:57] AND SOME STAFF FROM PUBLIC WORKS ARE PARTICIPATING IN SOME STAKEHOLDER WORK THAT IS HAPPENING TO TRY TO COME UP WITH [53:02] SOME SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW CITIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE [53:07] SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE ARE LOOKING. THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED ARE, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES A VARIANCE -- WHAT CHANGES [53:13] TO THE VARIANCE PROCESS COULD LOOK LIKE. ARE THERE THINGS [53:18] THAT ARE IN CURRENT RULE THAT CAN POTENTIALLY CHANGED IN STATE LAW TO ALLOW FOR THINGS LIKE [53:26] LANE WIDTH? WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DESIGN ELEMENTS OR OTHER DESIGN [53:31] STANDARDS THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO MSA PROJECTS. THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME OF THE SAFETY [53:37] CONSIDERATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED. DESIGN ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDEREDDED THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY PART OF THE DESIGN [53:43] MANUAL. I THINK ONE THING WE'RE LOOKING AT, THESE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE CREATED BY STATE, [53:50] YOU KNOW, LOCAL ENGINEERS. AND SO THESE ARE PROFESSIONALS IN THEIR PROFESSION THAT ARE [53:56] CREATING THE DESIGNS. AND SO WE'RE THEN LOOKING AT HOW DO YOU [54:01] MAINTAIN -- POTENTIALLY MAINTAIN THAT WHOLE PROCESS. WHILE BALANCING THAT OUT WITH THE NEEDS AND CONCERNS OF [54:07] COMMUNITIES. AND SO THAT IS THE WORK THAT MYSELF AND, LIKE I SAID, A COUPLE OF PUBLIC WORKS [54:14] ARE PARTICIPATING IN. HOPEFULLY, IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION BETWEEN US [54:19] AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERSES THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE PROJECTS, I DO THINK THAT WE [54:25] CAN -- I'M CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC SOMETHING CAN BE PUT FORWARD TO [54:30] THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AND COME OUT OF THAT. THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO EVERYBODY. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL. [54:38] THE OTHER CLARIFICATION I WANTED TO MAKE IS SOMETHING DIRECTOR TOPINKA HAD IN HER SLIDES. IS [54:47] THE $57 -- $5.7 MILLION GIVEN TO EAST PHILIPS FOR THE ROOF DEPOT [54:53] SITE? >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, YES. THE WATER YARD IS RELATED TO THE [54:59] ROOF DEPOT PROJECT. THE WAY IT WOULD LIKELY HAPPEN IS THE FUNDING WOULD COME TO THE CITY [55:05] FOR THE FUTURE WATER YARD. BUT IT WOULD BE PART OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE WITH THE EAST PHILIPS NEIGHBORHOOD [55:11] INSTITUTE AND ALLOW FOR THE SALE TO MOVE FORWARD. >> WE ALLOWED IT ONE EXTRA YEAR? MOST RECENTLY? [55:17] >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, YES, CORRECT. I BELIEVE THE CURRENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT EXPIRES [55:23] SOMETIME THIS SUMMER. I DON'T RECALL EXACT DATES. >> THANK YOU.. [55:31] >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. [55:38] I APOLOGIZE, DIRECTOR, I DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTIONS. WELL, IN MY [55:45] FIRST QUESTIONING. I'M CURIOUS, ARE THERE ANY ANTI-LGBT OR TRANS [55:52] YOUTH LEGISLATION MOVING FORWARD IN THE LEGISLATURE? AND IF SO, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THOSE [56:00] BILLS? >> CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO, THERE [56:06] IS NOTHING MOVING FORWARD. EARLIER THIS SESSION, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF HEARINGS IN THE [56:13] HOUSE EITHER PRIOR TO WHEN THE POWER SHARING AGREEMENT WENT INTO PLACE. OR AT A TIME WHEN [56:20] ONE OF THE GOP CHAIRS WAS HOSTING COMMITTEE. THEY DID HAVE A COUPLE OF DISCUSSIONS [56:27] AROUND TRANS YOUTH IN SPORTS. BUT THEY HAD HEARINGS AND THEY [56:33] DID HAVE ONE FLOOR DEBATE PRIOR TO THE POWER SHARING AGREEMENT [56:40] BEING IN PLACE IN THE HOUSE. BUT NOTHING PASSED. AND SINCE THERE'S BEEN THE POWER SHARING [56:45] AGREEMENT IN PLACE, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN FURTHER FLOOR DISCUSSIONS. AND GIVEN THE MAKEUP OF THE LEGISLATURE AT [56:50] THIS POINT, DON'T ANTICIPATE ANYTHING MOVING FORWARD. >> THANK YOU. . [56:56] >> THANK YOU I'LL ASK ONE LAST TIME BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE FEDERAL PORTION, IF ANY OF [57:04] COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE STATE PART OF THE PRESENTATION. I'M NOT SEEING ANY. SO, [57:12] DIRECTOR TOPINKA, LAUREN OLSON, WE CAN MOVE AHEAD TO THE FEDERAL [57:18] PART. >> GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M LAUREN OLSON, SENIOR GOVERNMENT [57:23] RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE. AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, I CAN'T [57:31] PROVIDE YOU WITH ANYTHING NEAR COMPREHENSIVE JOVAN [57:36] OVERVIEW. WE'RE FOLLOWING A LOT OF THINGS IN THE NEWS. I'LL HIT ON HIGHLIGHTS AND TALK ABOUT SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE POTENTIAL [57:41] IMPACT TO THE ENTERPRISE AND OUR ABILITY TO SERVE RESIDENTS. [57:48] FIRST THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE BUDGET TALKS THAT ARE COMING UP RIGHT NOW. SO [57:56] CONGRESS RETURNED FROM THEIR RECESS. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO START TO SEE THE DISCUSSION [58:03] BECOME MORE ROBUST ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND [58:09] SPECIFICALLY, AS YOU KNOW, CONGRESS EXPECTS TO USE PROBABLY THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS. AND [58:16] THAT WILL ALLOW SLIM REPUBLICAN MAJORITY TO PASS SOMETHING [58:23] WITHOUT DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT. IN ORDER TO USE RECONCILIATION [58:29] PROCESS, YOU NEED THE SENATE AND HOUSE TO AGREE ON THE EXACT TERMS. IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT FOR [58:37] THEM BECAUSE TO REACH SOME OF THE TARGETS, YOU DO HAVE TO TOUCH THE PROGRAMS THAT A LOT OF [58:42] AMERICANS DO VALUE. AND HAVE BEEN PUSHING BACK ON. SO CURRENTLY THE HOUSE IS WORKING [58:47] ON A PROCESS WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR $1.5 TRILLION TO CUT. AND THE SENATE IS TO LOOK [58:55] TO CUT AT LEAST $4 BILLION IN CUTS AT THE MOMENT. AND SO THE COMMITTEES THAT HAVE [59:01] JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN SUBJECT MATTER ARE WORKING, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE EACH [59:07] COMMITTEE COME FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE JURISDICTION, LET'S SAY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND [59:12] SECURITY. THEY HAVE RECOMMENDS ABOUT WHERE TO TRIM THERE, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CAREFULLY WATCHING FOR [59:18] THINGS COMING OUT OF NUMBERING NUMBERING -- COMING OUT OF ENERGY AND EXERCISE. AVERAGING [59:23] MEDICAID AND OTHER PROGRAMS. I THINK WE CARE ABOUT THE RESIDENTS CARE ABOUT. AS [59:29] DISCUSSED BEFORE, THE GOAL OF THE HOUSE IS TO CUT $888 BILLION [59:35] OVER 10 YEARS FROM THE BUCKET THAT INCLUDES MEDICAID. BUT MEDICAID MAKES UP SUCH A BIG [59:40] PORTION OF THAT BUCKET, TOO, AGAIN, IT'S LIKE -- YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT THERE, IF YOU [59:47] WANT TO REACH THAT TARGET. SO, AGAIN, IT'S NOT ENTIRELY POPULAR [59:53] WITH A LOT OF PUBLIC. THEY'RE HAVING A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT [59:59] IN REALITY HOW TO HAVE THE CUTS. THEY NEED THE CUTS, AS YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO [1:00:05] EXTEND TAX CUTS THAT BENEFIT THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS. IN ORDER TO EXTEND THAT, THAT'S WHY [1:00:10] THEY'RE MAKING THE CUTS. THEY ALSO ARE GOING TO INCREASE THE [1:00:16] DEBT CEILING. INTERESTING THING TO KEEP AN EYE ON, IS THAT ON [1:00:21] THE SENATE SIDE, SOME IN THE SENATE ARE TREATING THOSE TAX [1:00:26] CUTS AS IF THEY'RE IN PLACE AND, THEREFORE, THEY DON'T NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM GOING FORWARD. AND THEY CAN PRETEND IT'S NOT A [1:00:34] COST GOING FORWARD. WHEREAS THE HOUSE SIDE, THEY HAVE SAID THIS IS GOING TO COST US [1:00:41] $4.5 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS, IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE THESE. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT WITH THE CUTS OR BY [1:00:48] INCREASING THE DEBT CEILING. BUT SOME FOLKS ON THE SENATE SIDE ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT, "OH, WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE [1:00:54] ALREADY. WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS COSTS US MONEY IN THE LONG [1:01:03] RUN." SO INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS GOING FORWARD ON THAT. WE ARE IN REGULAR COMMUNICATION WITH [1:01:10] OUR DELEGATION ABOUT OUR PRIORITIES ON THIS. INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, OUR COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS. WE'RE [1:01:18] IN D.C. TO HAVE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS FACE-TO FACE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET [1:01:23] PRIORITIES. THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER WAS IN D.C. HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS. WE WORK WITH THEM REGULARLY. AND [1:01:28] REPRESENTATIVE OMAR WAS RECENTLY VISITED ONE OF OUR SCHOOL-BASED CLINICS AND GOT HEAR MORE ABOUT [1:01:36] THE IMPORTANT SERVICES WE CAN PROVIDE THROUGH FUNDING. AND THE IMPORTANCE OF MEDICAID TO -- AND THE PAYMENTS THAT MEDICAID [1:01:43] PROVIDES TO SUSTAIN A LOT OF RESOURCES THAT PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE RELY ON. INCLUDING RURAL [1:01:51] HOSPITALS. BUT, YEAH. WE'RE IN GREAT COMMUNICATION WITH OUR DELEGATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE. [1:02:00] IT WE DON'T COVER ALL THE EXECUTIVE ORDERERS HERE. I THOUGHT MAYBE WE SHOULD TOUCH ON [1:02:06] A COUPLE THAT CAME IN LAST NIGHT. OR TO BUSINESS [1:02:12] YESTERDAY. IT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST. ONE OF THOSE ORDERS WAS ABOUT UNLEASHING LAW [1:02:19] ENFORCEMENT. IT INCLUDES A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS. SOME OF INTERESTS REQUIRES WITHIN 60 [1:02:26] DAYS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REVIEW ALL ONGOING FEDERAL CONSENT DECREES. AND [1:02:33] ESSENTIALLY LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD CONTINUE. AND [1:02:39] THEN THERE'S ALSO A PLAN TO CREATE A MECHANISM THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF LAW [1:02:45] ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ACCUSED OF WRONG DOING. THERE'S ALSO A REFERENCE THERE TO THE POTENTIAL [1:02:51] FOR PRO BONO REPRESENTATION. AND I'M WONDERING FOR THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO UTILIZE SOME OF THE LAW FIRMS FOR THAT PURPOSE. [1:02:58] BUT THEY WANT TO CREATE A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE SUPPORT. [1:03:04] THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION IN THERE ABOUT MAKING, YOU KNOW, MILITARY EQUIPMENT MORE [1:03:09] ASSESSABLE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE'VE SEEN SOMETIMES IN THE PAST. AND THEN [1:03:16] THERE'S LANGUAGE HERE ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PRIORITIZING [1:03:23] PROSECUTION OF ANY APPLICABLE VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW. WITH RESPECT TO STATE AND [1:03:28] LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. I'M READING DIRECTLY FROM IT. SINCE WE GOT IT LAST NIGHT. WHOSE [1:03:35] OFFICIALS PROHIBIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM CARRYING OUT DUTIES NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND WHOSE [1:03:43] OFFICIALS UNLAWFULLY ENGAGE IN DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION. I THINK YOU'RE [1:03:48] AWARE, TOO, THAT THE WORD "DISCRIMINATION "GET USED IN A MANNER BY THE ADMINISTRATION [1:03:54] THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE THOUGHT OF DISCRIMINATION IN [1:04:00] THE PAST. ON THAT NOTE, TOO, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL [1:04:08] RIGHTS OFFICE HAS SEEN A HUGE LOSS IN STAFFING. THEY USUALLY [1:04:15] HANDLING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE MORE FAMILIAR TO US. BUT THEY WENT [1:04:24] FROM 380 TO, I THINK, 140. I WROTE IT DOWN SOMEWHERE. 380 TO [1:04:34] ABOUT 140 STAFF. SO AS THE ADMINISTRATION REALLY TRANSFORMS [1:04:40] ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY WANT THAT DIVISION TO IF BE FOCUSED [1:04:45] ON. -- TO BE FOCUS ON. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU HAVE [1:04:50] A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST A JURISDICTION. I'LL LET THE LAWYERS SORT THAT OUT. WE'LL [1:04:57] KEEP AN EYE ON THIS. ANOTHER [1:05:04] EXECUTIVE ORDER YESTERDAY REQUIRES THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE [1:05:11] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PUBLISH A LIST OF S& [1:05:18] SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS WITH, THEY TEND TO NOTIFY THE JURY DICTIONS HOW THEY THINK THEY'RE [1:05:24] VIOLATING VARIOUS FEDERAL LAWS. THEN THEY INTEND TO IDENTIFY FUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR [1:05:29] TERMINATION. AND THEN IF JURISDICTIONS ARE DEFIANT TO [1:05:36] THEIR VIEW, THEY'LL USE LEGAL AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION. SO THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF STEPS. THIS IS [1:05:43] KIND OF PAR FOR THE COURSE. IN TERMS OF WE'RE SEEING SIMILAR [1:05:49] THINGS TO THIS. TRYING TO GO AFTER PEOPLE THEY SEE AS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR [1:05:54] ADMINISTRATION POLICIES. WHATEVER THEY MAY BE. THIS [1:05:59] EXECUTIVE ORDER ALSO INCLUDES THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSING THEY BELIEVE STATE [1:06:04] AND LOCAL OFFICIALS USE THEIR AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE, OBSTRUCT, AND DEFY THE ENFORCEMENT OF [1:06:11] IMMIGRATION LAWS. THEY LIST SOME WAYS THEY FEEL THAT LAWS THEY THINK ARE VIOLATED. THEY [1:06:18] CALL THIS A LAWLESS INSURRECTION. AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AMERICANS IN FAVOR OF ALIENS. THEIR TERMS [1:06:27] "ILLEGAL ALIENS." THIS IS ANOTHER -- NOW IT'S DISCRIMINATION AGAINST [1:06:33] AMERICANS. TERMINOLOGY LIKE "INSURRECTION" DEFINITELY IS [1:06:38] CONCERNING. IN TERMS OF WHAT TOOLS, I THINK THEY WANT TO -- [1:06:44] HOW THEY'RE VIEWING THIS AND THE TOOLS THEY WOULD WANT TO USE. [1:06:52] PIVOTING A LITTLE BIT. JUST TO THE GENERAL TOPIC OF KIND OF SOME OF THE THREATS TO SOME OF [1:06:58] THE FUNDING THAT WE RELY ON. [1:07:05] THIS IS A SAMPLE OF ISSUES. AS YOU KNOW, KIND OF JURISDICTION [1:07:10] HAVE BEEN INUNDATED WITH DIFFERENT ATTEMPTS TO LAW BACK [1:07:17] MONEY OR THREATEN MONEY. A RECENT EXAMPLE. I THINK IT WAS [1:07:23] APRIL 24th. THE LETTER CAME OUT FROM THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION ABOUT KIND OF IN [1:07:30] THEIR WORDS, CLARIFYING WHAT THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS COME ALONG [1:07:35] WITH RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS. I THINK THERE SOME DISAGREEMENT WHETHER THINGS LISTED ARE [1:07:40] OBLIGATIONS. THEY KIND OF PROPORT TO SAY THOSE ARE THE [1:07:46] TERMS OR THIS IS WHAT YOU AGREE TO WHEN YOU AGREE TO TAKE FUNDS. AND IF YOU ARE NOT COMPLYING [1:07:52] WITH ALL OF OUR KIND OF -- IF YOU ARE -- IF YOU'RE [1:07:57] DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE. AND, AGAIN, THEIR VIEW OF [1:08:03] DISCRIMINATION, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU GUYS GET IT. BUT INVOLVES -- DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN [1:08:08] BASED ON SEX, BUT IT'S ABOUT [1:08:14] SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE OR, YOU KNOW, THEIR VIEW OF DISCRIMINATION IS DIFFERENT. SO [1:08:20] THE LETTER THREATENS. IF YOU'RE DISCRIMINATING AND ALSO NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THEY SEE AS THE FEDERAL STATUS OF FEDERAL [1:08:27] LAW, IT WOULD LOOK TO MAYBE TERMINATE FUNDS. AND ALSO HOPE TO RECOVER FUNDS THAT WERE [1:08:33] ALREADY EXPENDED, WHICH IS SOMETHING NEW THERE. U.S. WHY [1:08:39] LIKE WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDERERS AND THIS, I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CAVEAT THAT, OBVIOUSLY, [1:08:46] IT DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGAL WHEN YOU WRITE IT DOWN THIS WAY. BUT THIS WAS SENT TO ALL THE [1:08:52] RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS. LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THEIR VIEW OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND WHAT THEY [1:09:01] WOULD LIKE TO DO IF PEOPLE ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THEIR GOALS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE [1:09:07] CONTENDING WITH THAT IS FAIRLY NEW. ANOTHER THING THAT [1:09:12] HAPPENED THAT HAD A MORE POSITIVE RESOLUTION. SO SOMETHING POSITIVE HERE. THE [1:09:19] FEMA INFORMED RECIPIENTS CERTAIN GRANTS THAT WENT TO CERTAIN [1:09:27] JURIES DICTIONS THAT -- OR IDENTIFIED AS S&LING WARE CITIES WOULD UNDERGO GREATER SCRUTINY [1:09:35] FOR POTENTIAL TERMINATION. THIS WAS A FEMA HOMELAND SECURITY [1:09:42] COLLABORATION. THEY COULD NOT [1:09:59] STOP THOSE PROGRAMS BASED ON THIS. SO I THINK A BIG ISSUE [1:10:11] GOING FORWARD. IN MANY OF THE [1:10:16] ATTEMPTS AT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CLAWING BACK FUNDS HAVE MET SOME [1:10:22] SERIOUS OBSTACLES. A VERY BIG ISSUE TO CONTEND WITH GOING FORWARD. IS AS WE HAVE NEW GRANT AGREEMENTS THAT DON'T HAVE [1:10:29] EXECUTED AGREEMENTS, WE'RE GETTING CONTRACTS WITH DIFFERENT TERMS IN THEM. THAT SOME WHICH [1:10:34] MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO US AS A CITY. I'M SURE THERE WILL BE [1:10:41] LEGAL PUSHBACK, TOO, IN TERMS OF NEW AGENCIES. WE KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IS STILL WORKING ON [1:10:47] THEIR NEW TEMPLATE FOR THEIR GRANT AGREEMENTS. I'M SURE [1:10:55] THERE WILL BE SOME CONCERNS THERE. MORE EXAMPLE OF SOME POSITIVE THINGS. SO AS YOU [1:11:01] KNOW, CITY WAS A PARTY TO SAN FRANCISCO BEAT TRUMP. WHERE THE [1:11:07] ADMINISTRATION KIND OF ORDERED AGENCIES TO WITHHOLD FUNDS FROM SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS. WHAT [1:11:14] THEY DEFINE AS A SANCTUARY JURISDICTION. AND THE COURT GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [1:11:21] PROHIBITING THE ADMINISTRATION FROM WITHHOLDING FUNDS ON THE BASIS. OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS A GOOD [1:11:26] THING. I WOULD EXPECT THERE WOULD BE AN APPEAL BUT I CAN ASK [1:11:35] HAROLD QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. ALSO, REGARDING THOSE COVID-19 FUNDS. THERE WAS [1:11:42] AN ATTEMPT TO CLAW BACK MONEY PROVIDED FROM COVID-19. [1:11:50] MINNESOTA UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ELLISON JOINED A LAWSUIT WITH OTHER STATES OVER THAT. $11 BILLION [1:11:57] IN NATIONAL INVESTMENT. GOT A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO [1:12:02] RESTORE THE FUNDS. THOSE FLOW THE STATE. AS WE KNOW, WE MIGHT [1:12:09] STILL BE WORKING OUT THE COMMUNICATION IF WE CAN START TO UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS AGAIN. IN [1:12:21] ORDER TO TRACK, YOU KNOW, THESE WE'VE JUST ENHANCED SOME OF OUR [1:12:27] CITY PROCESSES AND PROTOCOLS. AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A RESOLUTION ABOUT HOW [1:12:32] TO ACCEPT A GRANT GOING THROUGH FORMAL STEPS. WE HAVE SOME [1:12:39] INTERNAL TRACKING TOOLS. WE MAKE SURE WHEN THERE ARE CHANGES OR THREATS TO THE FUNDS THAT IT [1:12:44] GETSES INTO A SYSTEM THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE THAT INFORMATION. WE [1:12:51] ALSO HAVE PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ARE GETTING NEW CONTRACT TERMS OR REVISED CONTRACT TERMS, [1:12:57] WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICIES AND PRACTICES. [1:13:04] THERE'S SOME INTERNAL WORKING GROUPS THAT INCLUDE A LOT OF FINANCE FOLKS THAT ALSO HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TRACKING [1:13:12] THE FUNDING THREATS, AS WELL AS A GROUP THAT LOOKS AT IT FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE. THOSE ARE [1:13:23] SOME OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO MAYBE HIGHLIGHT FOR TODAY. [1:13:34] SORRY. SORRY. ANY QUESTIONS [1:13:39] >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. YEAH, THE FEDERAL PRESENTATION, I DON'T THINK IS ONE WE LOOK FORWARD TO ANYMORE [1:13:45] IN THIS COMMITTEE. I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR WORK, A LAURA, IN [1:13:50] PUTTING IT TOGETHER AND TRACK IT. I KNOW THAT ITSELF IS A CHALLENGE. TO DO. BUT REALLY [1:13:57] IMPORTANT. AND I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. AND THIS IS [1:14:02] MAYBE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. [1:14:10] KIND OF WANTED TO SEE IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO WHERE WE ARE WITH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND KIND [1:14:16] OF WHAT NEXT STEPS ARE. AND WHAT WE'RE WAITING FOR. I KNOW THAT IF THERE'S APPEAL, THE [1:14:24] INJUDGES COULD BE REMOVED. IF YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR US. [1:14:29] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. WHERE WE ARE IN THAT, WE HAD ORAL [1:14:34] ARGUMENT LAST WEEK. THE JUDGE IN THAT ORAL ARGUMENT WAS [1:14:40] INCLINED TO GRANT THE PRELIMINARY INJUDGES. AND THE FOLLOWING DAY HE DID JUST THAT. [1:14:50] WHAT IT DOES, IT PREVENTS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FROM WITHHOLDING FEDERAL FUNDING [1:14:56] BASED OFF OF THEIR DESIGNATION OF CITIES OR JURISDICTIONS AS [1:15:03] SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS. MOVING FORWARD, WE GENERALLY EXPECT AN APPEAL OF THAT. IT HASN'T COME [1:15:09] THROUGH AS A CHECKING -- I CHECKED THIS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON. I HADN'T SEEN IT. I [1:15:14] CAN CHECK WITH THE LITIGATORS AFTER THIS MEETING TO SEE IF ANYTHING HAS COME THROUGH. WE GENERALLY EXPECT ONE, THOUGH. [1:15:21] THRF THERE WAS IN THE PREVIOUS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THERE WAS A LAWSUIT VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE -- THAT SAN [1:15:29] FRANCISCO BROUGHT IN AND WE'RE A PARTY OF TO. IT WAS, TO MY [1:15:34] RECOLLECTION, APPEALED, AS WELL, WITHIN THE NINTH CIRCUIT. IT [1:15:40] WAS UPHELD. THE APPEAL WAS UPHELD. WE CAN LIKELY EXPECT [1:15:46] THE SAME THING. UNTIL THEN, WE DON'T -- THERE'S NOT A LOT MORE [1:15:52] TO REPORT. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. [1:15:57] YEAH. I MEAN, THE ACTIONS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT ARE COMING DOWN AND GETTING IN [1:16:03] THE REPORTS ARE TRULY REPREHENSIBLE. I KNOW OUR COMMUNITIES ARE FEELING A LOT OF [1:16:10] ANXIETY. AND I THINK THEY'RE FEELING SOME SAFETY IN BEING IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. BUT [1:16:18] THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN CLEARLY COMMUNICATE OUT TO OUR IGR TEAM AND ANYONE LISTENING, PEOPLE ARE [1:16:23] ANXIOUS. ESPECIALLY WITH THE IMPENDING CUTS TO M MEDICAID [1:16:29] AND MEDICARE. ONE THING I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS ASKING US, AND PERHAPS YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME INFORMATION [1:16:35] OR UPDATES, IS AROUND THE [1:16:44] REVOCATIONS OF VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT BE USING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO TAKE A POLITICAL POSITION. ALSO [1:16:51] WE'VE BEEN SEEING PEOPLE GOING TO GET THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND BEING STOPPED RIGHT BEFORE THAT. [1:16:57] WE'VE AN INSTANCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CAMPUS. AND THEN, ALSO, IN MANKATO. AND THEN, ALSO, EXPERIENCES BY TRANS [1:17:08] AND NONBINARY, GENDER NONCONFORMING COMMUNITY MEMBERS STRUGGLING TO GET IDENTIFICATION [1:17:14] DOCUMENTATION. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU IS ANY UPDATES, OR IF OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL IS WORKING ON [1:17:19] ANYTHING IN W REGARDS TO THESE INSTANCES. [1:17:25] >> YOU KNOW, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS OR IS [1:17:32] NOT. BUT HIS OFFICE HAS BEEN DOING AN AMAZING JOB ON TOUCHING [1:17:38] SO MANY ISSUES. IT'S A COMPLICATED QUESTION. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, I WOULD [1:17:45] REMIND CONCERNED RESIDENTS THAT WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT A LOT OF HELPFUL RESOURCES ARE [1:17:51] ASSESSABLE TO THEM. AND ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO GO TO THE WEBSITE FOR THE OFFICE OF IMMIGRANT REFUGEE AFFAIRS. AND [1:17:58] THEY'LL FIND A LOT OF RESOURCES. AND INFORMATION THERE ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS. AND WE'LL ALSO [1:18:06] BE -- WE'RE LOOKING TO ENHANCE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO [1:18:12] TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS. SO THE [1:18:17] NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY RELATIONS DEPARTMENT IS LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S GOOD RESOURCES [1:18:23] THERE. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. I CAN'T REMEMBER OFFHAND. IF [1:18:29] THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -- AS YOU KNOW, THE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAS JOINED THE BIRTHRIGHT [1:18:36] CITIZENSHIP, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGE AND SUCH. BUT I CANNOT REMEMBER [1:18:43] IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE RECENTLY. >> WE CAN LEAVE THAT UP TO ADMINISTRATIVE FOLLOW UP. JUST [1:18:48] GETTING ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S [1:18:53] OFFICE OR ANY OTHER STATES OR CITIES ARE DOING IN RESPONSE TO THESE EGREGIOUS ACTIONS THAT ARE [1:19:00] VIOLATING PEOPLE'S CIVIL LIBERTIES AND BASIC RIGHTS WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW. BUT HAVE APPRECIATED THE WAY THE CITY OF [1:19:06] MINNEAPOLIS, ALL TOGETHER, HAVE STEPPED UP TO JOIN ON TO THESE LAWSUITS. AND JUST TAKE THIS [1:19:14] PRO ACTIVE AND REACTIVE ACTION. THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING I'VE BEEN CONSISTENTLY SHARING OUT WITH [1:19:20] COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AS THEY'VE BEEN ASKING. EVEN IN MY OWN OFFICE HOURS OR IN COMMUNITY. I'M SURE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS [1:19:26] HAVE EXPERIENCED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS LOCAL LEADERS. AND I'LL JUST SAY, [1:19:33] JUST A COMMENT TO YOU ALL, AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL OR [1:19:40] IN OUR NEXT UPDATE IN THIS COMMITTEE. IF THERE'S WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN CONTINUE TO SEND UP [1:19:47] SOME OF WHAT WE'RE ADVOCATING FOR. WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM RESIDENTS TO OUR FEDERAL [1:19:53] DELEGATION THAT GOT THE CONVERSATION THAT WE GOT TO HAVE WITH SENATOR SMITH, SENATOR [1:20:01] KLOBUCHAR, AND CONGRESSMAN OMAR WAS REALLY, REALLY IMPACTFUL FOR THEM. EVEN AS THEY SHARED IN [1:20:06] OUR CONVERSATIONS. AND SO WANT TO CONTINUE OF THAT DIALOGUE. [1:20:13] EVEN AS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE GOING TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR ANOTHER YEAR. IF WE CAN KIND OF BRAINSTORM ON WAYS TO DO THAT [1:20:18] TOGETHER. THAT WOULD BE GREAT! COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE [1:20:24] FEDERAL PORTION OF THIS PRESENTATION? OKAY. I AM NOT [1:20:30] SEEING ANY OF THAT IN QUEUE OR FROM MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE. SO [1:20:36] SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT PRESENTATION. AND [1:20:43] WITH THAT, WE HAVE CONCLUDED ALL BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE ARE ADJOURNED.