Welcome to the regular meeting of the public health safety and equity committee for August 19, 2026. I am Jason Chavez, the chair of this committee. 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 broad time these broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call the role so we can verify a quorum for this meeting. >> Council member Payne is absent. Wansley is absent. Rainville >> present. >> Beta >> present. >> Whiting >> present. >> Vice Chair Stevenson >> present. >> Payne >> present. >> And Chair Chavez >> present. >> That is six members present. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. I'll remind my colleagues that we'll be using speaker management today. So, please make sure you're signed in. Today, we'll begin with our consent agenda. Our consent agenda is as follows. Items three organizes a contract amendment with Professional Recovery Organization Network for Firefighter Mental Health Services. Item four authorizes a contract amendment with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for additional software licenses, bodywork cameras, digital video storage, tasers, and related equipment for the police department. Item five authorizes the submittal of a grant application to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for a healthy homes production grant. Item six, amends council at check action 2023 A-0535 related to a grant from Henipin County Human Services and Public Health Department by correcting the amount to effective total of 2.56 million and include Wellstone High School to provide the health mentor model. Item seven refers to staff the subject matter of a commercial hood and exhaust cleaning program ordinance. Item A sets a public hearing for September 9th, 2026 to consider an ordinance related to neighborhood revitalization program policy board elections. Colleagues, is there any discussion or are there any items that anybody would like to pull for further discussion? Vice Chair Stevenson. >> Um, I'd like to pull number four for separate discussion. >> Separate vote on that as well. >> Probably not just discussion. >> Okay. I think we can if it's just discussion, we can just have a conversation about it. Um, Vice Chair Stevenson, >> you may go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. Um, yeah, I was just curious the the I'm curious about the numbers here in the amount of 1.4 million for a total not to exceed of 18 million. That's a really big gap. I was wanting to understand these numbers and what um yeah, how much we're anticipating to spend. Are we buying the equipment or are we leasing the equipment? >> If folks from MPD, welcome. [clears throat] >> Chair and council member, what we're doing right now is we're not um upgrading any equipment. We're not expanding any service. We're just getting additional body cameras and tasers and the supporting equipment for that. This is a singular purchase to support that through the life of the contract. The $18 million, that's the overall cap of the contract. So, in theory, two years from now, you could approve that MPD will have a thousand officers and then I would come back requesting additional body cameras and as long as we stay underneath that cap, it's an approval for council. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah, that makes sense. So, are we purchasing the equipment or are we leasing the equipment from them? It's in a purchase with a refurbishment in the future like we have with our existing body cameras right now. So, as the new technology comes out to upgrade the body cameras, that's on that replacement plan. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. >> Uh, Vice Chair Stevenson, are you Did you just have questions or did you want a separate vote on that? >> Uh, that questions was it? >> Okay. All right, colleagues. Um, since nobody else is on queue, I'll move approval of the consent agenda, including referring number seven to staff and setting a public hearing for number eight. All those in favor say I. >> I. Those oppose say nay. Any abstension? And that those items carry. Colleagues, um, next we have our public hearings. Anyone who signed up to speak will be given two minutes each to testify. For everyone in attendance and especially those who may participate in our hearings or comment period, let me offer this notice. These hearings are being recorded and broadcast. Both the recording and broadcast are classified as public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act by attending and participating in these proceedings. Your image and any testimony or information that you provide will also be subject to disclosure under that law. That includes but is not limited to your attendance, your name or other personal details you provide as well as any testimony or comments you provide in which includes any written submissions you make which are included in the record of this meeting. Our first public hearing is regarding the noise regulations ordinance. I will take note that these are five ordinances together. I'll invite environmental programs director Kelly Mullman to present and I didn't miss attendance of anybody. Correct. Okay, great. Welcome. Good afternoon, chair and council members. My name is Kelly Mullman. I'm the director of environmental programs for the Minneapolis Health Department. Uh I'm here today to speak to chapter 389, the city's noise ordinance. Uh bringing forward an amendment. Um and then as mentioned, um four other ordinance amendments as related. Um, the city's noise ordinance spells out the city's authority for regula like regulating undesirable noises that can be that can create a threat to the health and welfare of the people of Minneapolis. Chapter 389 covers noise limits set by the state and the city to be protective of health and welfare. Uh, it includes penalties for violating noise limits. It lists activities exempt from noise limits. uh it speaks to amplified sound permits, vehicular noise, and noisy and unruly assemblies. The changes that I'm bringing forward today is a complete revision to accomplish the following objectives. to reorganize sections to improve the logical flow of the ordinance, to simplify language, improve consistent use of terms, and cut out unnecessary content, and to move noisy and unruly assemblies to its own article within the chapter. Additionally, we're adding language under alarms regulating the sounding of motion sensors on private property so that the audio is not audible from adjacent residential uses. That language is here in front of you. So the new uh language is highlighted under number four says the sounding of a motion sensor on private property so far as is not audible from an urban neighborhood or residential mixeduse district boundary or a permitted or conditional residential use. Um, this issue came about because we've received a number of service requests over the last year complaining of um a neighbor having a Ring camera um that had a audio recording that was triggered as part of a motion sensor and that going off um regularly throughout the day um and disrupting um the peace and welfare of the adjacent neighbor. So, those are the uh changes that I wanted to bring forward to you today and I'm happy to stand for any questions. >> Thank you. I think it would be good if we first set up the public hearing, then we open up for comments. Council comments or questions? Okay, perfect. Great. So, with that said, I'm now going to open the public hearing. And the first person to sign up is um it says the first name starts with a H and I think it's Damer last name. Okay. Hi. Welcome. Uh good afternoon chair and council members. My name is Roy Dmer. I'm a resident here in Minneapolis uh and for Ford specifically and I'm here today in regarding item one which is a proposed amendment change to chapter 389 noise regulations. Uh I wanted to highlight section three of the staff report which explicitly acknowledges there was zero targeted communication or engagement with uh Minneapolis residents or property owners prior to the draft of these changes. Uh the report notes that uh this is this is rewritten and driven internally by the inspector. Uh while administrative cleanup makes sense, codifying restrictions and standards in residential security devices without public input creates an arbitrary policy which uh which responds to an isolated neighbor dispute rather than addressing actual systemic noise issues across the city. Specifically, the the language that penalizes motion sensor chimes and audio audibility past property lines creates uh in my opinion an unreasonable and unforcable standard. Uh ring cameras are used across the city by thousands of people uh for basic deterrence of perimeter awareness and property safety. Um factors like lot sizing and proximity make zero off property audibility virtually impossible um standard for security devices or that specific feature within security device. By writing this clause in the code city risk by creating a administrative mechanism that can easily be weaponized by neighbors or personal grievances against uh responsible homeowners that are simply trying to keep their property secure. I ask that the committee remove or strike uh the specific motion for this clause today. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee? Going once, going twice, going three times. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I will now close this hearing. And colleagues, I will now open it up uh for you to ask any questions or make any comments. Council member Rainbow. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh so, u director, I I just do have a question. I got an email from a resident uh who probably is the source of these complaints you've been getting. Uh and explain that she's only 5t away, 10 feet away from uh the property next door to her. So when her Ring camera speaks, uh, it's very close by and can be heard from the property next door. Uh, is is that I mean, it just seems like, uh, an issue that can be looked at a little closer. Is that is that okay to really delve into that or is it just a blanket problem? The the amount of noise? Uh, chair, council member Rainville, um, order, could you clarify, uh, what you mean by looking too closer? >> And I'm sorry, I'm not I'm not being clear on this. So, her camera is 10 ft away from the neighbor's property line. So, when it when it goes off, when it speaks, when it's audible, uh, it's very very close by. So, thus, do they have and I'm not familiar with Ring cameras. Do they have a volume and it can be turned on? Is that what you're want to achieve in the ordinance? >> Uh, yes, Chair Chavez, Council Member Rainville. Um, the Ring camera motion sensor um is both has a sensitivity setting for um the distance, so where it gets triggered. So, we have had some issues where somebody just walking by or a car driving down the street has set it off. Um, which seems unreasonable. Um, and then, uh, it also has a volume control. Um, so the volume can be turned down so that you have to be much closer to the property to hear that uh the sounding of that recording. >> Okay, great. Uh, thank you for letting me know that and I'll pass that information on. Thank you, >> Council Marvel. Is that the only questions you have? >> I'm sorry. >> I just want to make sure you're on Q4. I think the system is broken. So, >> great. Okay, Council Member Whitening. Thank you, Jared Chavez. Uh, and thank you, director. Um, just kind of wondering about the specific scenario here. Can you kind of explain to us a little bit? It sounds like it's coming from this ordinance change is coming from uh is it one incident or there has been multiple uh incidents. Can you kind of give us a little bit of background on that? >> Yes, absolutely, Chair and Council Member Whiting. Um, there have been multiple uh complaints that we've received at various addresses across Minneapolis. So, this isn't an isolated incident. Um, we're seeing the issue arise more and more often. Uh, we actually had one referred to us um from, I believe, your office earlier this week where there was um a multi-unit property um and someone was walking by on the sidewalk and it went off. Um, so we're we're seeing a lot of um uh service requests or complaints come in through 311 to our in to our inspectors. Uh, one of the reasons for bringing this forward is because the sound is triggered by motion. It's intermittent. We can't take our standard sound um >> u sound level measurements um because it's not going constantly. We take those for a uh 10 minutes and then take the average. Um so with something like this, we have to be able to say is it audible or not audible at a certain distance from the source. Um and that's where the recommendation comes from here. Okay. Uh do do you have kind of an estimate of how many uh complaints that you've all received in the last year, six months, etc.? >> I'm going to look to my inspections team. Okay. 10 and north one, three, two, just in the last probably six months. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Right, Connley. Um, I'll move this for approval. And seeing no one else on queue, I'll ask the clerk. Well, I'll I'll move this >> second. >> Sorry, second. Uh, those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? All right, that motion carries. Thank you. Uh, our next public hearing is regarding pet ownership um restrictions ordinance. I will now invite animal care and control director Shindle for that presentation. All right. Good afternoon, Sher Chavez, committee members. My name is Tony Shundle, director of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. I am here today to present on a topic um that was initially authored by council member Wansley and uh offered by also co-authored by a couple other council members. And this particular uh ordinance amendment that was brought forward is uh recommended to amend uh Minneapolis city ordinance 66.80 80 specifically for our justice impacted residents who are convicted of a violent felony. And under that definition, it's specifically listed in state statute. It's a very broad definition of uh felonies that qualify. And it is anything from just to name a few uh any drug charge, any uh murder or assault, burglary, domestic assault, things of that nature. And it simply is just striking that language and actually adding a couple other um helpful uh statutes uh to help us in actually keeping uh pets from people who shouldn't be owning them when in fact this ordinance uh we feel actually uh prohibits our justice impacted residents from owning a pet uh who really are we found good animal owners. And I'll share some data at the end that might be helpful in uh making a decision on this today. Also, I wanted to give a special thanks to uh our author and co-authors for this special uh unique title that was given to this. I certainly can't take credit, but all right. So, as I mentioned, uh really it's 66.80, uh which is talks about pet restrictions for felons particularly, uh who happen to be our justice impacted residents. Um, it requires currently uh somebody to have a prohibited animal permit for somebody who has been convicted under one of those uh qualifying state statute offenses that uh I noted and any animal that weighs 20 pounds or more. So, specifically, we find this just more for dogs uh not cats. Some of our key changes for this proposal would be striking the language that makes this ordinance apply to anyone convicted of that qualifying felony under state statute. Um, and rather than just an animal cruelty conviction. Also, um, enumerates the reasons why that an animal could pose a danger to the public even with this change. We'll continue at Animal Care and Control to maintain the authority to regulate ownership when someone previously owned a dog declared dangerous and/or potentially dangerous. And we'll also add language that would explicitly provide MAC the authority to deny permit applications for those with an animal cruelty conviction, uh, which really is the most important here. Um, and anybody, uh, that has been convicted under Minnesota statute 343.21, 21 which is the animal cruelty code and then also uh Minnesota statute 609.205 clause 4 and that specifically talks mostly about owners who are negligible in their ownership of animals and use them to cause harm to the community. And some of the main reasons driving this proposal is we find the current language is unnecessarily restrictive. It incorrectly assumes that someone with a qualifying felony under that state statute wouldn't be a good pet owner. In fact, uh, in my tenure with the division, uh, we found that these felons often are great owners and they've just had an unfortunate situation in the past and they want to start have a good ownership and a relationship with their pet and they're prohibited uh, by doing so because they're often met with an immediate $250 application fee, which this would also remove. So, just to have a pet over 20 pounds, they would have to pay $250 to our office to have even uh myself or someone from our staff review that application. Um, so this will also help them because they're often at times um looking to um you know, help get their life back on track and uh find housing and things of that nature. And we rarely do find cause to deny an application. Um and again this fee really acts as more of a burden than effective tool to increase the public safety by doing this and removing hidden fees uh and barriers to our justice impacted residents. Uh it'll also help them find housing like I mentioned. It'll align with the city code uh 2025 civil rights ordinance that upheld equal rights and protections for all renters. And it will also be an effective tool through city ordinance to deny an application based on animal cruelty. And that's really our goal here and or when the animal poses a risk to the public safety. And the implementation piece of this would be rather quick and easy. Um it could be effective immediately upon publication to eliminate the permit requirement and that would immediately remove the $250 application fee for our justice impacted residents. and it would include relatively simple operational changes on our end. So, I know we went back and we pulled some data from 2020, January 1st of 2020. So, looking back since then, we've only had 18 of these permits uh or applications come before us. Of those, 11 were approved and seven were denied. And most the denials were based on the aggression piece where the animal we wouldn't want in the community anyhow. And I'd also like to note that standalone that felony conviction is wasn't enough for us to deny ownership. It also had we also had to uh essentially pro prove that the animal posed a risk to the public safety. And in any case, the animal owner had a right to a hearing uh an administrative hearing and then they would present their case before the city and a hearing officer and they would ultimately make the determination if they could own an animal. And also I just want to conclude uh this presentation by um just noting that certainly our goal here is not to you know put the public at risk. I in fact think this will do just what we intend it to do and keep the public continue to keep the public safe but also help out our justice impacted residents who really are good pet owners and really restrict ownership and prohibit ownership from folks who are using an animal uh inappropriately such as harming them causing harm to them andor uh allowing them to pose a risk to the public safety which all of those same things and the added amendments will help us uh do that even better. So, but with that that concludes my presentation and I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you for the presentation. We'll first proceed with the public hearing and then we'll go to questions and comments. At this time, I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing. The first person to sign up is number one, Daniel. Welcome. Good afternoon, chair and council members. My name is Daniel. I want to focus on one specific change in this ordinance. Um, right now Minneapolis requires certain people with violent felony convictions to get a special permit if they want to keep an animal over 20 pounds or another animal care and control believes could be dangerous if misused. That is not a ban. It is a temporary permit and review process. This ordinance eliminates that requirement. It keeps the existing rules that apply after dangerous animal incidents, and it adds new restrictions for animal mistreatment and for secondderee manslaughter involving an animal. MACC has said these permits are rarely denied and that the process is therefore more burdensome than useful. I take that concern seriously, but a low denial rate by itself does not show that a preventive safeguard serves no purpose. So I think the real question is about prevention. The current law accepts the risk that some people who would never misuse an animal still have to get a permit. The proposed law accepts the opposite risk that someone with a recent history of serious violence may keep a large or potentially dangerous animal without review until there is an animal related reason for the city to act. I think the first risk is more reasonable. If the current law is too broad, narrow it. If the fee is too high, lower it. But please do not eliminate the preventive safeguard entirely. Thank you. >> Next up, we have Mike. Uh, Chairman Chavez, members of the committee. Uh my name is Mike McCainy. I'm a W 2 resident and uh I uh directly experienced uh this process. Um and when I experienced it, I thought this is uh a lot of work to have a dog. Um, the pet ownership ordinance in front of you, 202600871, uh, is, uh, something that I wrote council member Wansley about and, uh, probably why we're here today. Um, first off, I want to be clear upfront. I'm not here to play the victim. Uh, I have a felony conviction. I own that. Uh, and I've worked to build a different life. Uh, but a fee on my dog uh, doesn't answer from my past. Uh it just punishes me for still being here and trying to live the best life possible. Uh I'm in recovery and you know having a dog to come home to has been one of the most important parts of uh the recovery process for me. Having that unconditional love is amazing. Uh little history in February I adopted a dog uh named him Houdini. I got him from the city's own shelter. Uh he's 73 pound American bulldog. He's afraid of the vacuum and uh sleeps with his back uh and legs in the air and likes belly rubbed. Uh he's neutered, he's microchipped, he's vaccinated. Um you know, I did everything right. He has better health insurance than I do. Uh and the city adopted him to me. Uh and then the same day turned around and uh said, "Hey, you got to pay $250 uh extra to get a license. Then you got to pay the $30 everybody else has to pay." Uh, and my understanding is I have to renew this permit every year. And I'm assuming the $250 gets charged every year. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um, so I'm assuming every year my dog's alive. I'm going to have to live with this. Um, nobody came to inspect the house. Uh, they just, uh, approved it. Um, and I've, you know, worked really hard, uh, to redeem myself. I raised dogs for the blind while I was incarcerated. Uh, and basically this is a tax. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee? Point once. >> Welcome. And once you're done speaking, if you mind just signing in so you have your information. >> Where do I sign in at? >> After. Okay, I'll do that. >> Welcome. >> Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Jonte Hudson and uh I am a northeast resident of Minneapolis. Uh, but I also work for Small Sums. Um, and Small Sums did issue a a letter on behalf of their organization for this ordinance. But I want to talk a little personal. Um, I'm one year out of incarceration for 21 years at the age of 16. And what an animal means to me with no kids is family. Most people treat their pets like family. But this ordinance put in place that you got to pay to have family. And um I believe that um that if this ordinance is changed that it will help a lot of people getting out of incarceration not to have to worry about just one more fee, one more thing they have to pay for clothing, shoes, housing, transportation, yet you got to have a pet. I don't know exactly how much this ordinance affect the emotional support dog, but that is also something that individuals should look into. A lot of people getting out of incarceration use their pets as family emotional support dogs and things of that nature. So to have to pay something that another group of individuals does not have to pay is strictly wrong in my opinion. if I did my time, I should be treated as such a part of my community. I do a lot of outreach, organization work. I'm a part of the community, but yet when it come to my dog, I'm not. Um, I believe that's just not fair. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to testify? Going once, going twice, going three times. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I will now close this public hearing and open up this ordinance for discussion. I'll first pass it to Vice Chair Stevenson. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, this is a a a beautiful ordinance that we're looking at. Uh, a lot of people, as as the last person said, get a lot of love and support from their dogs, from their well, this probably won't affect cats, but from their dogs. Um, and having an exorbitant fee on this just means that the poor can't have it, but the rich can have it. And I don't I don't think that's right. Um, and then just from my personal experience, I uh used to work in homeless outreach and a client of mine, he was a native elder, he was just as impacted. He unexpectedly lost his housing and so he was outside and as a as a senior citizen sleeping in a tent in Minneapolis outside he was extremely depressed and really the only thing and I mean this I mean this exactly the only thing that kept him from killing himself was his dog and uh you know if if he probably was able to pay this fee previously but in this yearish time when he was outside uh he would not have been able to pay this fee. And so to have taken his dog away from him at this time would have been disastrous. So um yeah, for him and for many others, I I I think we should move forward with this. This is a great this is a great thing to do for our community. Um and I think we should call the role on this uh on this item. >> Thank you. I'm next up on Q. Just want to thank animal care and control reggg services for all the work on this policy. It is literally going to make a difference and it's very important. Um I also want to thank um council Wanzi, council chowry and council whiting in my office as well and thank you for the communication that was sent at the beginning of the year. I remember reading that email and it was it was very heartbreaking but I do know that staff from animal care and control was immediately like here's what we can do about it and now it's being brought forward. So it's so it's incredible just to see it happen. Um and because of your advocacy um so many other people's lives are going to be improved as well because this is this hap has happened to other people. So just thank you for that. Um last year the city council also passed the comprehensive civil rights ordinance adding justice impacted into our civil rights uh protected classes and I see this as another step forward in that direction and really excited to vote for this. So, I just wanted to add more information and thank staff for the presentation as well and the work behind this. Next up, we have Council Member Whiting. >> Thank you, Council Member Chavez and director. I have a few questions for you uh related to and what obviously I'm co-author so in support of the ordinance, but I've had a few residents kind of reach out um with I think confusion. I think the the title of the the amendment itself I think is not as clear about what this ordinance is actually changing. Um, can you kind of speak to um, it is my understanding that this ordinance does not allow individuals to have future ownership of dangerous or potentially dangerous animals. Um, and this isn't changing that like those restrictions still exist for anyone as they would for anyone in the city of Minneapolis. Um, can you kind of talk about that process uh, broadly? Yeah, through the chair. Council member Whiting. Thanks. Great question. So, that is correct. The title is kind of a little bit misleading and maybe not uh fully um encompassing of what the actual amendment is here, but potentially dangerous, dangerous, and uh order for destruction are the three different levels uh in which our office can declare an animal. Um this mostly applies for dogs, but certainly can for cats as well. But, uh our office reviews anytime there's an animal bite or an incident. um or an attempt for an animal to attack a person when it's reported either through 3in-1 or 911 and that those cases are all reviewed by primarily myself and I take everything into account. We our animal control officers meet with the victim uh of the incident or the animal bite. We meet with the owners, any witnesses that were involved. I review all that information. We look at other factors. Has this animal had any prior bite history? is this owner um had any prior other history uh with our office as well uh andor in um an associated uh jurisdiction. And those are all factors we used to take into consideration. And we are taking a very progressive approach because we understand accidents happen and no matter what we want people to be able to own pets, right? And um we need to however put restrictions in place for when they uh misbehave and when they are posing a risk to the public safety and that's where the declaration process comes in. So potentially dangerous is the least severe. Some of those requirements just to name a few are a muzzle and a three-foot leash they have to wear and be walked by an adult only. They have to register annually with us and our office goes out our staff and checks on those owners and pets every six months. Uh is required. Dangerous is the next level of declaration. Those are all the same requirements. The sterilization uh which is also for potential the muzzle, the three-foot leash, but it's also governed by state statute. So, it follows the animal uh anywhere in the state of Minnesota. They also have to have signage, yellow signs that the state produces uh to be displayed in the front and rear of their property, just notifying folks that a dangerous animal does live there. And they also are required to have a $300,000 insurance policy to prevent against uh any potential injuries that may reoccur given the nature of the seriousness of the declaration. And then destruct as our reserve for the most severe crimes maybe where an animal is already dangerous and it gets out and does some significant damage then we would uh elect to do that. And again the ordinance is not changing any of those restrictions. It's actually just adding uh removing the piece about f felony specific cases and also just adding in some extra protections that we can do to help our our four-legged friends uh be safe from people who have had prior animal cruelty convictions. >> Thank you, director. And right and I think it's really helpful the clarification there specifically about uh right this is not uh removing any level of of the process that you just laid out. uh it just I think ameliorates this for for everyone. uh and and in particular, right? And I think the piece that we we are I think is quite helpful that is overburdensome in this ordinance is the the kind of 20 pound piece. And so, um, maybe again if if I am incorrect here in my own assumption of what that what that means is any person with a violent felony conviction as as laid out by the the statute um has to go through this process currently if they want an animal of of any sort, even if it's the nicest animal in the world over 20 pounds. Is that correct? Or is it like a dangerous one of the three that you laid out plus 20 pounds? >> It is. It is currently any uh justice impacted resident that has a felony under one of those qualifying convictions, they have to pose a one-time $250 application fee uh regardless of the the potentially dangerous or dangerous designation. >> So long as it is over or with the 20 pound moniker or >> That's correct. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That is all. Thank you so much, >> Council Member Vita. >> Thank you, Chair Chavez. Thank you uh to the community members who got this going. This is really cool. As a a dog owner and a dog lover, I actually believe you should at least have two dogs. One is so lonely, not only for you, for them. They they need friends just like we do. And I often say, you know, the the human owners put so much stress on one pet because we have so much to give them when we come home or when we're going through tough times and happy times that you should at least have two. And so I'm grateful to anyone who wants one. Pets are a lot of work, especially dogs, especially fosters. Um I ran into Tony a while ago and I asked about something similar and he told me that some of my colleagues were working on this already. So I'm so proud of the work that's being done around here. Nothing we've done in our life should stop us from loving pets. And I think one of you said that. Um, I certainly am aware that people harm animals and there are protections that are in place and should remain in place so that never happens. So, I appreciate those guardrails still remaining there to make sure that our our furry pets and family members are um are protected. But I am I'm proud of the work that that this community is doing around this. I think folks who are just as impacted should speak up for themselves and say, "I want a pet just like everyone else does." and I don't want to have to pay extra because $250 is a lot. Um, when you're a pet owner, there's lots of expenses that come with it that you don't know. That's a medical bill, that's dog food, that's um, you know, a pet sitter, that's out at a dog park or something, wearing them out. You know, when you have to go to work, you want them to be tired sometimes when you get home. And so $250 is a lot of money that I would love to be seen um I would love to see be used towards something else for your pet, you know, a toy or something other than um fees that no one else has to pay. And you certainly should not be penalized for uh having furry family members. So thank you all so much for this. definitely support this and um I'm proud of my colleagues who brought this forward and and who's doing this work to to make sure folks get to have furry loved ones in their care as well. And like I said, have to why not? Thank you. >> Love it. All right, colleagues. Someone else is on queue, so the clerk may call the role. >> Council member Tame. Rainville >> I >> VA >> I >> Whiting >> I >> vice chair Stevenson >> I >> and chair Chavez >> hi. >> That is six eyes. >> And that motion carries. Thank you all for being here. We will now move on to the receive and file part of the agenda. Our last item receiving a root report regarding the opioid response and mobile medical units. I will invite public health initiatives director Louisa to begin that presentation. Welcome. Welcome. >> Hi. Um, the slides. Oh, there they go. Okay. Uh, good afternoon, Chair Chavez, council members. My name is Louisa Brendau. I'm the director of public health initiatives with the health department, and I'm happy to be here today to present on the city's opioid work over the last uh since the beginning of the year. Uh, first I'd like to acknowledge that this work is done by our incredible opioid response team and our MMU team. Neither the teams the the staff cannot be here today because they are out in the field doing doing the work. So, but I do like to introduce Suzanne Young, our opioid response um work manager and Dr. Nataba, who is our medical consultant, medical director for the MMU. Um starting with some data uh we have seen uh since our peak of o uh of opioid involved overdoses in 2023 we have seen slight decreases in Minneapolis and also in the state. However, um our rates are still very high and um it is not going to zero, which is what we would like to be able to say, right? Nobody should die of an opioid involved overdose. Um and we have significant um racial ethnic disparities. We see that the rates for our residents are black and American Indian residents are four and um close to 30 times higher than that the resident uh rates for our white residents and much u the disparities are much higher than we what we see for Minnesota as a whole and the US as a whole. So work to do. Additionally, Minneapolis as a city is over represented in the state's opioid overdose deaths. We have about 7% of the state's population and yet we represent about a quarter of those opioid involved deaths. So, um definitely quite a bit of work for us to do as a city. So, I am going to present on our opioid response initiatives. We um have several and that from harm reduction um to youth prevention activities. Um nar Narcan saturation and syringe abatement are um both harm reduction and preventative in public safety issues. We also have our MMU and firststep programs which are both um public safety but as well as treatment. and then our brain waves program which is a youth prevention um initiative. In terms of Narcan situ saturation, we continue to expand access to Nlloxxone um as part of our overdose prevention efforts. We currently have three vending machines at um fire stations, fire station 21, uh 14 and five, and are in the process of connect uh working to install a fourth um vending machine at fire station 12. Additionally, our OT, our opioid response team is working with community leaders in Cedar Riverside to explore uh what are the best um strategies to increase access to Nlloxxone in in that area of the city. And we work with several community partners to distribute Nlloxxone at pop-up events and community events to make sure that it's accessible um as well as through our MMU. And finally, we hold the OT team holds quarterly training sessions on um on nlloxxone um use for community members. So we um those are open to city employees, outreach partners, community organizations and the idea is to continue to increase community awareness of Nlloxxone and increased individuals confidence in using it if um if there is a need. In terms of our syringe abatement, we continue to focus on the issue of syringe and needle litter and we use a four-pronged approach of sweeps, syringe dropboxes, responding to 311 requests and training and education. Um, so we have a contract with Mother's Love and they do they respond to 311 requests and as well as do sweeps and those are the numbers for January through July. We have currently 26 syringe box dropboxes um installed across the city and are working to add an additional 15 through a pilot project with the Minnesota Department of Health. Um in additional to that, our staff does period um periodic sweeps two to three times per week in high priority areas such as the Southside Green Zone, Hayawatha Corridor, Pen Lowry, uh West Broadway, and other places. And over the past um over the past six months, the response the 311 responses and sweeps have um there have been over a thousand needles collected. Uh as well as in our in collaboration with a couple of businesses, we've um gotten more than 700 um discarded needles and and syringes collected as well. So definitely um trying to get keep those out of the street. Um then we have our mobile medical unit and you can see the map is where the unit has been deployed over the past year. Um actually I think maybe today or tomorrow is a one-year anniversary of the first time we went out. Um so currently um the unit today is on West Broadway with our Twin Cities Recovery Project partners but in Sanctuary. Uh but those are the map shows where we we normally are. Um we have been deployed the unit um 168 times between August 22nd of last year and the end of July. Um in that time we've interacted with over 4,000 Minneapolis residents and provided health care to not over 900 individuals. um 22 so 22% of all encounters have have resulted in a uh providing medical care um of those individuals to whom we provided care 32% um were dealing within stable housing and we've also through the MMU distributed close to 1500 doses of of Narcan or the intraasal nlloxxone um additionally our medical 900 medical encounters have resulted in over 600 um referrals for housing, medication for opioid use disorder treatment. Um in connection to community clinics for follow-up care. So in addition to doing that, there's been prescription medication prescriptions and wound care kits have been provided to um the individuals that have been there. And finally, we have been um to make use of the unit because this is a great resource. Our school-based clinic team has on times when uh the opioid response group is not using it taken the unit to do some summer school events and we'll be using it for some back to school events. Um so the schoolbased clinic staff has uh someone that can drive it and we'll be providing services out of it as well. And we'll continue to develop um we have developed new partnerships each time and we've continued to develop partnerships with community organizations to find new places where that there is a need for the unit and for us to be. We are always out in partnership with a community organization or a community group or a business or that so that we are um in partnership with someone that is trusted in that community. Um, next I'd like to speak to our first step treatment program. This is um a program that is a low barrier um program for access to medications for opioid use disorder. We started this program with Fairview um medical and in 2022 and have continued to um work with both Fair View and are trying to expand um and it's been it's being replicated across the metro and in other parts of the state um over the since January through both through first step um both through the emer Fairview emergency department and our our clinical partner, community partner, over 200 people have received medication just in the first six months of of the year. And we are in the process of expanding as I mentioned. So we are um training community navigators, cohorts of community navigators connected to specific communities um to be in the field and to connect individuals to um to treatment and to provide education on um the low barrier and the mo the medications for opioid use treatment. Additionally, uh we are working to build the capacity of our clinical partners. So, we have a contract uh with California Bridge and they've developed they delivered training to our community clinical partners on um in on implementing um this type of program in their clinical sites and you know the pieces that need to be part of it. And so we're working currently with three additional clinical partners to expand access um and are working on as well on making sure that we have the medication on our medical mobile unit. Um we are running into some barriers related to the legal pieces but have a workaround for providing medication from our cross town office where the unit is housed with the goal of eventually having it on the unit so that it is an additional um low barrier access point. And finally um youth prevention prevention is important. you know, it's better if no if uh people don't start using substances in the first place. And so we have a curriculum that has been uh developed in partnership with the University of Minnesota and the Masonic Brain Institute. That's the right Masonic Brain Institute. Um and has been piloted um it was piloted at three of our school-based clinics with with the health educators over the past year. We are in the process of revising and reviewing the curriculum and have submitted a grant to ORAC uh the opioid epidemic response basically state funds. I can't remember what that stands for, but state funds to implement the uh to to implement the curriculum at the additional um at the five Minneapolis public schools with our uh school-based clinic staff and um MPS staff. So, and that is all I have and I'm happy to stand for questions. >> Yeah, thank you for that presentation, Louisa, and the health department. offers pass to Council Member Vita. >> Thank you, Chair Chavez. Thank you so much for this presentation. Again, just fantastic work uh that the health department is doing. I do have a couple questions because I think requests have gone up for cleanup around needle um pickup around like Broadway and Penn and Li and Pin. So, just wondering if you're looking at uh the future of a lot of requests that are starting to come in and like what is what is going to happen with this program or funding um to grow this because it's certainly not getting smaller. >> So, we definitely have seen an increase um in requests and we have some of our own staff that is doing sweeps as I mentioned. Um I in terms of funding and um I will turn it over to Commissioner Richie who can probably speak to that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair Chavez and Council Member Vita. Yeah, we have um a um funding package that includes uh syringe mitigation. So we are continuing with the um public health specialists that we have doing syringe mitigation and other harm reduction activities and then also the contract with a a mother's love will continue. Um and then with our um project with the department of health that expands our syringe boxes and so our ability to be able to place syringe boxes and then empty those as well. So there's definitely funding um set aside for for the syringe mitigation program. Got it. And then when you say like some of your team is doing these sweeps like who on the who's >> So our public health specialist um Demir and I he's not here because he's out but he he and um Tony Zakardi and other public health specialists go out and will do some of these sweeps not necessarily in response to a request but in areas that we know um are can be problematic. >> Yeah. like in terms of like the laundromat on pan >> like there's a lot there and you get a lot of requests for that. Okay, got it. Um >> and just in terms of the requests that come through 311, those are sent to a mother's love and are addressed within 24 hours of the request being received and by us. >> Thank you. I think that's actually a wonderful uh program and to and a way to get that done because uh you know they have people they can deploy anywhere they need to go. So that's very helpful and needles are very scary to families especially with children and so I really appreciate that program and hope that uh we can keep that strong and if we need to figure out how to get more uh employees out there I think we should figure that out too because these requests are not slowing down. They they're coming in more and more I think than they've ever um than they ever have before. Uh the second thing I wanted to talk about is the mobile medical unit is so amazing. I love the work that you all did during Operation Metro Surge. You know, it started out slow for me. I was feeling neglected on the north side with the mobile medical unit, but you all stepped it up big time, and I appreciate it. I I greatly appreciate [snorts] how you've shown up in North Minneapolis with the mobile medical unit, how you've been just so you've adjusted to where the things are happening at. That that means a great deal to us. I love that people know where it's going to be and know how to access it and that they feel safe. You know, one of the things that I had not thought about during Operation Metro Surge is like the people who needed urgent medical care that were too afraid to go in to get it. And how you all showed up. I can I can just think about a woman who had a baby during Metro Surge and had not had any prenatal care after she had the baby, but the mobile medical unit was parked up on Penn and she was able to go in there and get care and be directed to the right person. That meant everything to our community. I mean, it really is um just such a safe place for people who are afraid. It's where they are. you know, the fact that you were just moving around as needed and helping out the faith organizations and the people who were talking to people every day. That is something to be so proud of. I mean, you all really stepped it up, especially I I can only speak for the north side because that's what I was paying attention to because the requests were never ending for medical services and that was from day one. And so I really do appreciate the work that you all did on a daily basis to make sure that folks were able to get at least basic medical care, at least some advice on where to go, who was a safe place to what what was a safe place to go to. That that is you you you did a great job with that. And I and I appreciate the mobile medical unit for that. I certainly um also appreciate the uh the vending machines in the fire stations. I think I got some numbers recently that uh station 14 in Ward 4 is the most used station and so I mean you all have been there. You know what happens in the surrounding areas and to have that resource there is also appreciated. It it's it's always interesting when I when I hear people talking about Narcan and they say, "Oh, you can just go to the vending machine at the fire station." They talk about it like candy, right? Like it's just like a part of the community now. And I and I I appreciate that because that's the work you all have done. You don't just put it there and leave it. you put it there and you teach community how to use it, how to activate the space, that they're welcome there to get it, that there's no stigma associated with you going to help someone or you telling someone how to access it. And I think you've done um a fantastic job at that. It is truly a community resource. And if I know you said there's going to be one more, Louisa, I I urge anyone who has an opportunity to get one in their community to do so because I know the one in war 4 is used greatly in North Minneapolis. Not just by folks in need at that moment, but people get it for their family members. People get it because they encounter things on their way to and from home and school and work throughout the day that they want to prepare for. And and that's good. that's good for our community. You know, we we want to help our neighbors and this is a tool in helping our neighbors. So, thank you so much for that. Um, just overall, this is just really good work and I and I'm so grateful that you all are presenting this and and continuing to move forward. this this youth development is also really good and you know you I can't remember what name you use but I call them CHWs but like using the folks who are in these communities every day to do this work is certainly the pathway to getting it done. they know better than we will ever know. As someone who comes from that world, like you're you're on track for getting our young people trained and developed to doing this and then using the people who are not only impacted but have the community connections to this. So, thank you so much. >> Thank you. And I want to add that the comm community navigators or the cohorts they they've helped um you know folks are helping in developing the training and what you know it's so it's so that it's appropriate for each community. Um, in terms of the mobile medical unit, I'd like also to add that we are not a primary care clinic. So, we would not ever be someone's medical home, but we we are committed to being in the same places on a regular basis so that people can approach us. And then we are working with our uh federally qualified health centers and other community clinics to ensure that that person gets connected to a medical home because that's where ongoing care is going to happen. So that's part of the model. Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't see anyone else on quue, but I did want to thank the health department for you for uh bringing us this presentation. It's really great work that is happening. It's good to see that the at least it shows that the Narcan machine stations number five that folks in the community knows these exist. And that's that's a really good thing because that means that we're able to save people's lives. So just thank you for the presentation and I'm always super grateful for the Narcan U machine. So thank you. >> All right, colleagues, seeing no further discussion, I'll ask the clerk to file that report and seeing no further business before us, I will declare this meeting adjourned. which we all like clarity.