[0:20] >> GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. MY NAME IS AURIN CHOWED RAH. [0:25] I'M THE CHAIR -- CHOWDHURY. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS [0:31] COMMITTEE. I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER OUR REGULAR MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 18, 2025. I WANT TO REMIND STAFF, THE [0:39] COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO GREATER ENABLE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. [0:44] THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REALTIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD OF MAKING PROCEEDINGS [0:52] ACCESSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY. THEREFORE BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF YOUR SPEECH SO OUR CAPTIONERS [0:57] CAN FULLY TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. [1:08] I'LL NOW HAVE THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL. >> COUNCILMEMBER PAYNE. >> PRESENT. >> WONSLEY. >> PRESENT. [1:13] >> VETAW. >> PRESENT. >> ELLISON IS ABSENT. OSMAN IS ABSENT. CASHMAN IS ABSENT. [1:19] JENKINS IS ABSENT. CHAVEZ. >> PRESENT. >> CHUGHTAI. >> PRESENT. [1:25] >> KOSKI IS ABSENT. PALMISANO. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR RAINVILLE. >> PRESENT. [1:30] >> AND CHAIR CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT [1:35] WE HAVE A QUORUM. I'LL ALSO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE'RE USING SPEAKER MANAGEMENT TODAY SO PLEASE MAKE [1:43] SURE YOU SIGN IN. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AND FILED TODAY STARTING WITH RECEIVING AND FILING AN UPDATE [1:49] RELATED TO 2026 LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS. WE WILL NOT BE TAKING FORMAL [1:56] ACTION ON THE POSITIONS TODAY. WE'LL BE TAKING UP FORMAL ACTION IN THE NEW YEAR AS LEGISLATIVE [2:02] SESSION IS LATER ON IN FEBRUARY. SO WITH THAT, I WILL WELCOME UP [2:10] DIRECTOR TOPENKA FOR A PRESENTATION ON THE POLICY POSITIONS FOR 2026. [2:17] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING A [2:24] PRESENTATION TODAY ON NEW ITEMS THAT CAME THROUGH OUR POLICY LIAISON TEAM PROCESS WHICH IS [2:29] THE PROCESS WE USE TO SEEK ITEMS FROM DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE CITY [2:35] ENTERPRISE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR OUR LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS. SO I'LL CALL UP IN A MOMENT TO [2:43] REMIND YOU ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND GO THROUGH THE NEW ITEMS THAT CAME THROUGH THAT PROCESS. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE SHARING SOME OF THOSE NEW POLICY [2:50] POSITION RECOMMENDATIONS. WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF STAFF FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS HERE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT PROCESS AND [2:56] ARE ON HAND TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THEM BEING HERE AND ALSO FOR [3:02] PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS THAT HELPS SHAPE THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS. [3:08] AFTER THEY PRESENT THOSE NEW POLICY POSITION RECOMMENDATIONS, I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH A [3:13] DRAFT 2026 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WITH YOU WHICH YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKETS AND ATTACHED TO THE LIMS [3:19] FILE. AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR SECOND AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS A FEDERAL UPDATE. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO [3:24] MS. LANA. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR TOPENKA. [3:32] GOOD MORNING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL [3:38] RELATIONS DEPARTMENT. I'M HERE TO TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT PLT AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE PROPOSALS THAT WE RECEIVED. [3:45] SO THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM OR PLT IS COORDINATED BY THE [3:50] DEPARTMENT ANNUALLY AND IT'S OUR PROCESS IN WHICH CITY STAFF EVALUATE AND PROPOSE CHANGES FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION ON OUR [3:58] LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS AND AGENDA. PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE POLICY, TECHNICAL, AND LANGUAGE UPDATES. THESE CHANGES ARE BROUGHT TO US [4:05] AND IDENTIFIED BY DEPARTMENTS AS SOLUTIONS TO EXISTING PROBLEMS. SO ANY FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES OR [4:12] EXISTING POLICIES THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED OR TWEAKED OR EVEN CREATED IN ORDER FOR CITY STAFF [4:17] TO EFFECTIVELY DO THEIR WORK IS THE PURPOSE OF OUR PROCESS. SO THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM IS [4:24] MADE UP OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL CITY STAFF AND A FEW STAFF MEMBERS FROM EACH DEPARTMENT [4:29] THAT'S CHOSEN BY THAT DEPARTMENT'S DIRECTOR IS WHAT MAKES UP THE TEAM. SO THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM [4:37] REVIEW PROPOSALS AND SUGGESTED POLICIES FOR INCLUSION. WE HAVE TEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY AND NEW [4:42] LANGUAGE WILL EITHER BE NEW POLICY OR AMENDMENTS TO CURRENT POLICY. SO THE 2026 DRAFT AGENDA POLICY [4:51] POSITIONS WILL BE INCLUDED EARLY NEXT YEAR, I SHOULD SAY, FOR YOU ALL TO REVIEW AND APPROVE. [4:56] AND THEN DEPARTMENT STAFF WHO ARE PART OF PLT ARE HERE TODAY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THEY'RE [5:03] READY TO DO THAT AT THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. SO WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST [5:08] ONE. I'LL PASS IT OFF TO MY COLLEAGUE, STEVE. [5:16] >> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M STEVE HUSER WITH THE CITY'S [5:26] IGR DEPARTMENT. THE FIRST PROPOSAL WE HAVE COMES FROM THE ELECTIONS OFFICE AND THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. [5:31] THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO ADD CLARIFYING POLICY LANGUAGE RELATED TO CANDIDATE FILING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE AT THE [5:38] MUNICIPAL LEVEL. WE WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTING THE CURRENT ELECTIONS PLATFORM TO [5:43] INCLUDE SUPPORT FOR STATUTORY CHANGES WHICH WOULD PROMOTE CLARITY FOR THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES AT THE MUNICIPAL [5:48] LEVEL AND THE PUBLIC IN CANDIDATE FILING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING. A STATE LAW CHANGE IN 2022, MADE [5:56] IT SO THAT THIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS SHIFTED FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY TO THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS'S [6:02] ELECTIONS OFFICE. SO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO HAVE THE STATE CLARIFY IS THE STATE [6:08] STATUTE THAT WOULD SHOW WHAT THE KIND OF RULES OF THE ROAD ARE FOR CANDIDATES AND THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE AT THE [6:15] MUNICIPAL LEVEL. ADDING CLARITY TO THAT STATUTE SO THAT WHEN OUR CITY ELECTIONS OFFICE IS ASKED, WE HAVE A [6:20] LITTLE BIT MORE TO GO ON THAT THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN STATE STATUTE. [6:25] SO THIS WAS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND THE FILING THAT HAPPENED AT HENNEPIN [6:31] COUNTY UP UNTIL THE 2022 CHANGE. THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS NOW OURS, SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE CLARITY IN STATUTE THAT IS NO [6:36] LONGER IN STATUTE TO GIVE TO THE PUBLIC. AND THE NEXT ONE, I WILL PASS [6:47] OFF. >> THANK YOU, MR. HUSER. OUR NEXT ITEM, SECOND ITEM TODAY COMES FROM THE CITY'S COMMUNITY [6:54] PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ALSO KNOWN AS CPED. IT'S ALL ABOUT REVENUE GENERATION THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT [6:59] DISTRICTS. SO THE PROPOSAL WILL CREATE AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT THAT CAPTURES EXCESS REVENUE AND [7:05] VALUE IN PERMITTING OF NEWLY AUTHORIZED DIGITAL OUTDOOR SIGNAGE. THE CITY HAS BEEN APPROACHED BY [7:11] MULTIPLE MEDIA COMPANIES SEEKING TO EXPAND ALLOWANCES FOR THESE [7:17] DIGITAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENTS WITHIN THE WAREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. [7:22] THESE FUNDS WILL BE EARMARKED TO FUND OR ENHANCE THE CITY'S PUBLIC ART INITIATIVES OR EVEN [7:28] PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS NATIONALLY LIKE ATLANTA, BALTIMORE, AND DENVER HAVE [7:35] ADOPTED SUCH OVERLAY OR DISTRICT MODELS. CURRENTLY STATE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM SIMPLY CHARGING A FEE, SO [7:41] TO DO THIS WE WOULD NEED SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO GRANT US THE AUTHORITY TO GENERATE SUCH REVENUE. THE NEXT PROPOSAL COMES FROM OUR [7:49] HEALTH DEPARTMENT WITHIN OUR SUSTAINABILITY TEAM. THIS PROPOSAL CALLS FOR SUPPORT FROM THE STATE FOR MORE ENERGY [7:55] CODE ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING CODES. SO BUILDING CODES AND ENERGY [8:00] CODES ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY IN CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION [8:06] ACROSS THE STATE. IN MINNESOTA, WE ADOPT NEW BUILDING CODES EVERY SIX YEARS. AND THE LATEST UPDATES WERE [8:11] EFFECTIVE AS OF 2020 AND FOR ENERGY CODES, THOSE LATEST UPDATES WERE IN 2024. SO THIS PROPOSAL OR THE ASK IS [8:19] TO SECURE $500,000 IN ADDITIONAL ONGOING FUNDING TO EMBED [8:24] BUILDING THE NEXT SLIDE. I'LL PASS IT OFF TO MR. HUSER [8:30] AGAIN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. [8:36] THE NEXT PROPOSAL COMES FROM THE CPED DEPARTMENT. IT IS RELATED TO CANNABIS POLICY. [8:42] SO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTAL -- SUPPLEMENTING [8:49] CURRENT POLICIES TO BE UPDATED IN FOUR BASIC WAYS. ONE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE RESTORATION OF [8:55] THE LOCAL CANNABIS AID THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE STATE BUDGET [9:00] BILL LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION. SO THIS WAS AID THAT WOULD HAVE COME TO CITIES AND COUNTIES [9:08] FUNDED BY THE CANNABIS TAX AT THE STATE LEVEL. THAT MONEY IN AID WAS MEANT TO [9:13] OFFSET THE COST TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RELATED TO LICENSURE AND OTHER IMPACTS RELATED TO [9:18] LEGALIZED CANNABIS IN THE STATE. HAVING THAT REMOVED DOES LEAVE US WITH LIMITED ABILITY TO [9:24] GATHER ANY KIND OF REVENUE BASED ON THAT WORK. THERE ARE STILL A REGISTRATION [9:30] FEE THAT CAN BE COLLECTED BY THE CITY RELATED TO OUR REGISTRATION THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO REQUIRE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. [9:36] SO THAT DID NOT CHANGE, BUT THE AID THAT WE WERE RECEIVING IS NO LONGER COMING IN. [9:41] AND SO THE SECOND CHANGE WOULD BE TO SUPPORT ANY STREAMLINING THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD PUT [9:48] INTO THINGS LIKE LOCAL SITE APPROVAL PROCESS, THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND [9:53] POSSIBLY LOOKING AT THE 30-DAY DEADLINE THAT IS RELATED TO THAT SIGN OFF WITH THE STATE. [9:58] THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE DO WITH THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT TO ENSURE [10:05] THAT WHEN A LICENSEE IS APPLYING FOR A CANNABIS LICENSE WITH THE STATE, THAT THEY ARE COMPLYING [10:11] WITH CERTAIN ASPECTS RELATED TO LOCAL AUTHORITY, PREDOMINANTLY ZONING AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. [10:19] THE THIRD IS TO SUPPORT WORK AT THE LEGISLATURE TO LOOK AT THE [10:25] IMPACTS OF THE INDUSTRY WHEN LICENSES ARE POTENTIALLY BEING [10:31] SOLD TO THE CANNABIS LICENSES BEING TRANSFERRED FROM ONE LICENSE HOLDER TO ANOTHER. [10:39] THE THIS ACTIVITY IS HAPPENING AND WE DO THINK THAT WE'VE [10:44] IDENTIFIED POSSIBLY A NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THAT ACTIVITY, AND WE WOULD LIKE THE LEGISLATURE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. [10:51] AND THE FOURTH IS SUPPORTING CHANGES TO EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR WORKING IN THE [10:56] CANNABIS INDUSTRY. CURRENTLY THERE ARE A LOT OF JOBS OR A LOT OF OFFENSES THAT PEOPLE MAY HAVE HAD ON THEIR [11:03] RECORD IN THE PAST THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO WORK IN THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY. SOMETIMES THESE OFFENSES ARE NOT [11:09] NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE WORK THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD LIKE TO DO IN THE CANNABIS [11:16] INDUSTRY. WE WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THESE CHANGES TO ALLOW FOR SOME LEVEL OF EMPLOYER DISCRETION TO TAKE A [11:21] LOOK AT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER CAN TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE OFFENSE WAS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOOKING [11:26] FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE EMPLOYER IS FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH HIRING THAT PERSON INTO THE JOB THAT THEY [11:32] WOULD BE SEEKING WITH THAT COMPANY. AND THE NEXT ONE IS ALSO MINE. [11:40] THIS COMES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY DEPARTMENT AND IT WOULD BE A PROPOSAL TO MAKE CHANGES TO [11:48] CHAPTER 13 DATA PRACTICES LAW RELATED TO VIOLENCE PREVENTION DATA. SO CURRENTLY UNDER CHAPTER 13, [11:57] IF WE HAVE DATA THAT IS COLLECTED THROUGH OUR MINNEAPOLIS GROUP VIOLENCE [12:02] INTERVENTION AND YOUTH GVI PROGRAMS, THAT COULD BE [12:07] PARTICIPANT DATA, VOLUNTEER DATA, THAT DATA THAT WE COLLECT THAT CAN BE PERSONAL, SO IT [12:14] COULD BE NAMES, ADDRESSES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. UNDER THE CURRENT LAW WOULD [12:19] POTENTIALLY BE PUBLIC IF REQUESTED. WHAT WE WOULD BE ASKING THE STATE TO LOOK AT IS WHETHER OR [12:24] NOT SOME OF THAT DATA COULD BE MADE NON-PUBLIC DATA. THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS IS TO [12:32] ENSURE THAT FOLKS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE INTERACTING WITH OUR PROGRAMS COULD FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THE DATA WE [12:37] COLLECT WITH OUR PROGRAMS IS SAFE AND PROTECTED. AND IT IS OUR HOPE THEN THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE PARTICIPATION IN THOSE PROGRAMS. [12:47] AND I JUST REALIZED THAT THE THIRD ONE ON THIS PAGE IS ALSO MINE. SO THIS COMES FROM THE PUBLIC [12:53] WORKS DEPARTMENT. THIS WOULD BE SUPPORT FOR A LOW [13:00] INCOME RESIDENTIAL WATER AFFORDABILITY SERVICES PROGRAM AT THE STATE LEVEL. SO THE CITY WOULD BE SUPPORTING [13:06] THE CREATION OF THIS PROGRAM. IT WOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH A STATEWIDE FEE THAT WOULD BE [13:11] COLLECTED ON SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR BOTH DRINKING WATER AND [13:19] WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. IT WOULD BE USED TO OFFSET THE COSTS FOR THOSE WHO QUALIFY AS A YET TO BE DETERMINED QUALIFIER [13:24] FOR LOW INCOME FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROGRAM. BUT IT WOULD HELP OFFSET THE COSTS FOR DRINKING WATER BILLS, [13:30] WASTEWATER BILLS, AND STORM WATER BILLS. WE WOULD ALSO UNDER THIS [13:36] PROPOSAL WOULD POTENTIALLY BE SUPPORTING AN OFFSET WHERE IF THE STATE, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT [13:46] DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE PROGRAM, THEY COULD OPT OUT BY HAVING A STATE PROGRAM AS WELL. I WILL PAUSE. [13:56] I SEE THAT THE NEXT ONE IS ALSO MINE. THIS PROPOSAL ALSO COMES FROM [14:03] THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THIS IS SUPPORTING, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS WOULD BE MAKING A [14:12] CURRENT CHANGE RELATED TO THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID FLEXIBLE [14:18] DESIGN STANDARD. WHAT THIS WOULD BE ASKING FOR IS UNDER CURRENT LAW, AS A CITY [14:24] ABOVE 5,000, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IS ELIGIBLE FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDING FROM THE STATE. [14:30] THESE FUNDS COME FROM THE HIGHWAY USER TAX DISTRIBUTION FUND WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY [14:36] FUNDED THROUGH THE GAS TAX. AS PART OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE USE OF THAT MONEY, THE CITY, WE CAN ONLY USE [14:44] IT FOR UP TO 20% OF OUR ROAD SYSTEM IN THE CITY. [14:50] AND THESE STREETS HAVE TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DESIGN QUALITY AND STANDARD. [15:00] PART OF THAT STANDARD IS THAT OUR STREETS MUST BE DESIGNED TO THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET [15:08] STANDARD. WE ARE RESTRICTED TO THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS, HOWEVER THERE [15:15] IS A VARIANCE PROCESS CITIES CAN [15:22] APPLY FOR. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO CHANGE IN [15:27] OUR POLICIES IS TO GO BEYOND OUR CURRENT POLICY WHICH IS ASKING [15:32] THE STATE FOR FLEXIBILITY AND GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD BE SUPPORTING. SO ONLY OF THOSE ITEMS WOULD BE [15:39] EXPRESSING MORE CLEARLY OUR SUPPORT FOR USING SOME OTHER DESIGN STANDARD SUCH AS ALLOWING [15:44] CITIES TO USE THE MNDOT DESIGN GUIDE OR ENACTO CITY STREET [15:52] DESIGN STANDARD. IT WOULD ALSO BE ASKING FOR SOME AMENDMENTS TO THAT PROCESS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOR A [15:59] WAY TO APPEAL A DECISION BY THAT VARIANCE PROCESS. [16:07] I WILL PASS IT OVER TO M MS. FALANA FOR THE NEXT ONE. >> THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. HUSER. [16:14] WE HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FROM PUBLIC WORKS COMING OUT OF THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING [16:21] DIVISION. CONSTRUCTION AND DEBRIS IS MORE THAN TWICE THE AMOUNT OF SOLID WASTE. HOWEVER IT DOESN'T FACTOR INTO [16:27] SOLID WASTE GOALS. SO THE AMOUNT THAT'S GENERATED IS WHAT I MEANT FOR THE STATE BUT IN FACT IN OUR SOLID WASTE [16:34] GOALS. THIS PROPOSAL ASKS FOR ANY FUNDING INVESTMENTS IN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS TO PRESERVE, REUSE, RECYCLE, AND [16:41] RECONSTRUCT THOSE BUILDING MATERIALS. THERE WAS A TASK FORCE IN 2019 [16:47] RELATED TO THIS THAT THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY PUT TOGETHER AND THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME OUT [16:54] OF THAT TASK FORCE. THIS NEXT PROPOSAL ALSO COMES FROM SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING, AND IT CALLS FOR A STATEWIDE [17:03] FOOD DISPOSAL BAN. THIS IS FOR WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITIES. [17:08] IT WOULD REQUIRE BUSINESSES TO GENERATE LARGE QUANTITIES OF FOOD SUCH AS RESTAURANTS AND [17:14] GAUCHES TO USE RECYCLING SERVICES. DIVERTING EDIBLE FOOD FOR [17:19] CONSUMPTION, AND COMPOSTING OF FOOD WASTE FROM FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS WILL HELP REDUCE WASTE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED [17:25] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. THIS HAS BEEN A POSITION THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY HAS BEEN CALLING FOR FOR YEARS. [17:30] AND I BELIEVE THEY ALREADY HAVE ENACTED AN ORDINANCE. SO THIS WOULD JUST BE FOR A [17:35] STATEWIDE FOOD DISPOSAL BAN. THERE WAS ALSO A BILL THAT THE [17:40] MCPA WAS PUSHING A FEW YEARS AGO RELATED TO THIS TOPIC AND WE EXPECT THEM TO BRING IT FORWARD FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE [17:48] SESSION. AND THEN THE LAST PROPOSAL WILL BE COMING FROM MR. HUSER. [17:56] >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO THE LAST PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE COMES FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS [18:02] DEPARTMENT. THIS WOULD BE TO EXPAND THE MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TO INCLUDE SOME PROTECTED CLASSES [18:07] AND THOSE ARE TO INCLUDE JUSTICE-IMPACTED STATUS, HOUSING [18:13] STATUS, AND HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. WHAT THIS ASK WOULD BE AT THE STATE LEVEL IS TO MAKE THE STATE [18:18] HUMAN RIGHTS ACT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RECENT CITY ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED SUPPORTING THE [18:25] SAME CLASSES AS I'VE JUST IDENTIFIED. ONE BENEFIT TO DOING THIS THAT [18:31] THE DEPARTMENT HAD IDENTIFIED WOULD BE TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE STATE. THERE HAVE BEEN RECENT LAWSUITS [18:36] RELATED TO THE PROTECTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE USING THINGS LIKE SECTION 8 HOUSING VOUCHERS THAT [18:42] WAS UPHELD. SO IF WE WERE TO INCORPORATE THIS INTO THE MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, IT WOULD ADD A [18:48] LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BOOST TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF THESE PROTECTED STATUSES. [18:58] I'LL PASS IT OFF TO KATIE OR MS. TOPENKA. [19:06] >> THANK YOU. SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT CAME THROUGH THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM [19:13] PROCESS. AND JUST AS A REMINDER FOR HOW OUR PROCESS THEN WORKS, SO WE HAVE OUR LONGER LEGISLATIVE [19:21] POLICY POSITIONS DOCUMENT THAT WE BRING TO YOU EACH YEAR. WE'RE NOT STARTING FROM SCRATCH, SO THINGS THAT ARE ON THERE [19:27] ALREADY WILL LARGELY STAY UNLESS PERHAPS THEY WERE ACTED ON DURING THE LAST LEGISLATIVE [19:34] SESSION, THEN YOU MAY SEE THOSE COME OFF. SO WHEN WE COME FOR YOUR FIRST [19:39] CYCLE IN THE NEW YEAR, WE WILL BRING AN EDITED LEGISLATIVE [19:46] POLICY POSITIONS DOCUMENT THAT REFLECTS THESE ITEMS THROUGH THE PLT PROCESS AND THEN ANY CLEAN UP OR THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO [19:52] FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN WE ALSO BRING FORWARD LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT I'LL TALK THROUGH IN A MOMENT, BUT [19:59] MAYBE I CAN PAUSE HERE JUST TO SEE IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE POLICY ITEMS THAT CAME THROUGH THE PLT PROCESS. [20:09] >> MEMBERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PRESENTATION? [20:14] COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. I WAS CURIOUS IF ANY OF OUR [20:20] STATE LAWMAKERS ARE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL BAN ON HEMP DERIVED THC. [20:26] I KNOW PEOPLE ARE FAMOUSLY FRUSTRATED WITH HOW SLOW THE ROLL OUT OF RECREATIONAL THC IS IN MINNESOTA. [20:31] BUT THAT ROLL OUT IS INTENTIONAL TO BALANCE SAFETY AND ACCESS, RIGHT? AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS PUTTING [20:36] A WRENCH INTO THAT PROCESS. IS THERE ANY TALK OF ANY CHANGES THAT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN AT THE [20:41] STATE TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THESE FEDERAL CHANGES? >> I'LL LET MR. HUSER TAKE THAT [20:49] ONE. >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. [20:54] I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING VERY SPECIFIC. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THIS HAPPENED SOMEWHAT SUDDENLY [21:00] WITHOUT MUCH HEADS UP. IT'S STILL A RATHER NEW THING THAT I THINK WE'VE GOT ABOUT A [21:06] WEEK INTO THIS NEW REALITY. SO I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME [21:12] WRAPPING OUR MINDS AROUND IT. ONE THING THAT THEY WILL NEED TO LOOK AT IS THE CURRENT STATE LAW FOR LOW DOSE HEMP IS TIED TO [21:19] THAT STATE DEFINITION AND IT MAKES AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THAT WORKING FORWARD. SO THE STATE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN [21:25] A WAY TO WORK WITH THE OLD LAW AND DEFINITION ON THAT. I THINK THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT BECAUSE [21:30] THIS IS IMPACTING, THERE LIKELY WOULD NEED -- THEY WOULD LIKELY [21:35] CONSIDER CHANGES TO HOW THEY'VE SET UP THE LOW-DOSE HEMP STATUTE. [21:42] THERE IS SOME TIME DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL HEMP DEFINITION CHANGE HAS A YEAR BEFORE IT'S EFFECTIVE. [21:48] SO THERE IS SOME TIME TO EITHER CHANGE THE FEDERAL LAW IN SOME WAY THAT IS MAYBE NOT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS, BUT [21:55] AT LEAST SOME VERSION OF IT THAT WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEN THE CURRENT STATE LAW. EVEN IF THEY DO THAT, THERE'S [22:01] THE POTENTIAL THAT IF THERE WAS OTHER ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REGULATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN ANY CHANGE, WE WOULD HAVE TO [22:06] TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THOSE ARE, HOW THAT INTERACTS THEN WITH THE STATE STATUTE. SO I DO THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE [22:12] BOTH AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IMPACTED ARE [22:17] TAKING NOTE. I CAN SAY THAT I'M AWARE THAT THERE'S SOME WORK AT OUR CITY [22:22] LEVEL TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE OPERATING IN THE CITY. AND THEN WE'RE CONTINUING TO [22:29] WORK WITH FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERS TO GET A BETTER HANDLE ON WHAT EXACTLY THE CHANGE IS. >> THANK YOU. [22:38] >> NEXT I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. ALSO THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR [22:44] UPDATES. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS TO SHARE AND I DEFINITELY LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH [22:49] YOU ALL AND OUR MINNEAPOLIS DELEGATION MEMBERS ON ADVANCING A NUMBER OF PRIORITIES THAT [22:56] WE'LL CONTINUE DISCUSSING INTO THE EARLY NEW YEAR. BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO SHARE A COUPLE BASED OFF THE [23:02] PRESENTATIONS THAT I'VE HELD IN COLLABORATION WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE WHERE WE'VE INVITED OTHER EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND ALSO [23:09] MEETINGS I'VE HAD WITH MY OWN CON ST -- CONSTITUENTS AROUND [23:16] CLEAR PRIORITIES I'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD NEXT YEAR. THE FIRST ONE IS ONE WE [23:22] DISCUSSED IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE NONFATAL TASK FORCE WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY [23:28] THE LEGISLATURE LAST SESSION BUT DID NOT MOVE FORWARD. BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT ON THAT, A NONFATAL SHOOTING [23:35] TASK FORCES ARE A MODEL THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NOT EVERY NONFATAL SHOOTING COULD HAVE [23:40] BEEN FATAL, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO DIRECT INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES TOWARDS CLOSING THOSE [23:49] CASES. AND THEY'VE SHOWN PARTICULARLY THIS MODEL TO BE EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING MORE [23:54] SHOOTINGS AND ALSO BRINGING DOWN OVERALL GUN VIOLENCE RATES. AND THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT [24:00] ACROSS THE RIVER IN ST. PAUL. SPECIFICALLY ST. PAUL AND RAMSEY COUNTY HAVE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED [24:05] THIS MODEL USING THEIR OWN EXISTING RESOURCES AND USE IT AS A BASELINE FOR STATEWIDE ADVOCACY THIS PAST SESSION. [24:12] AND AGAIN CAME TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CHECK OUT THAT PRESENTATION. [24:20] WHEN WE CAN GET A PRESENTATION THAT INCLUDES ALSO QUOTE UNQUOTE CENTER OR LIBERAL LEADERS. [24:25] AND ALSO THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN EXPERIMENT. [24:31] ALL CLAPPING TOGETHER SAYING THIS MODEL IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE SHOULD ADOPT. SO WE RECEIVED A REALLY GOOD [24:37] PRESENTATION FROM THERE. AND SEEING JUST THE SUCCESS THAT RAMSEY COUNTY HAS EXPERIENCED IN [24:43] INCREASING ITS CLEARANCE RATES, I BELIEVE UP TO 75% OF SHOOTINGS [24:49] THERE. I THINK MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENTS ALSO DESERVE THAT SAME LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS AND INVESTMENT IN [24:54] PUBLIC SAFETY STRATEGIES THAT COLLECTIVELY MAKE OUR COMMUNITY [24:59] SAFER. AND AGAIN IF I'M BRINGING THIS ALSO AS A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE STATE'S [25:04] TWO LARGEST CITIES WHO ARE CHAMPIONING THIS WORK ALSO BE USED AS A LEVERAGE POINT JUST LIKE WE SAW WITH THE HUMAN [25:10] RIGHTS EXPANSION PRIORITY TO HAVE IT BE LEVERAGED TO ALSO INSPIRE AND INFLUENCE STATEWIDE [25:16] ACTION. THE OTHER TWO PRIORITIES THAT I'M GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD ARE RELATED TO MY WARD, WARD 2 [25:24] SPECIFICALLY, ONE IS TO EXTEND THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA'S GOOD NEIGHBOR FUND FOR ANOTHER [25:29] 20 YEARS WITH A NEW FOCUS ON FOOD SECURITY AND GROCERY STORES. THE GOOD NEIGHBOR FUND IS A [25:35] COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT. AND IT IS ADMINISTERED BY THE [25:40] UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AND IT GIVES SMALL GRANTS TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY INITIATIVES AND [25:46] BASICALLY IN THE BROADER UNIVERSITY AREA RANGING FROM PUBLIC SAFETY TO ARTS TO CULTURE [25:51] AND OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES. THE GOOD NEIGHBOR FUND WHICH [25:56] CHARTERED AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE BACK IN 2007 AND IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO SUNSET [26:02] AFTER 20 YEARS, BUT MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH LEADERS IN THAT AREA, THEY'VE MADE IT LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THEY [26:09] WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ASSET BE SUSTAINED FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS AND WANT TO SEE IT BE EXTENDED. [26:15] AND I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH OUR STAFF AND STATE LEADERS ON LOOKING AT HOW DO WE EXTEND THAT [26:22] FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS, WITH AGAIN A SPECIFIC FOCUS ON ADDRESSING FOOD INSECURITY AND ACCESS [26:28] WITHIN THAT AREA. AND THEN LASTLY, THE OTHER PRIORITY IS DINKY AFTER DARK [26:35] PHASE TWO. MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES KNOW THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS WE FUNDED THE FIRST PHASE OF [26:42] INSTALLING PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING AROUND THE UNIVERSITY AREA SPECIFICALLY IN THE DINKY TOWN [26:49] AREA. TO ENSURE THAT STUDENTS, RESIDENTS, TOURISTS, VISITORS, WHOMEVER IT MAY BE COULD GET [26:54] AROUND THE AREA FEELING SAFER. AND IT'S VERY CLEAR IT'S AN [27:02] ADDITIONAL PRICE TAG THAT'S COUPLED WITH THE $500,000 INVESTMENT THAT THIS BODY MADE TOWARDS IT. [27:07] AND WE'VE HEARD LOTS OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS, FROM UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES AROUND THE AREA OF HOW THAT HAS HELPED [27:14] TO IMPROVE SAFETY CONDITIONS OVER THERE. SO WE WANT TO CONTINUE BUILDING UPON THAT AND THEN WORKING WITH [27:20] OUR PARTNERS TO THEN LOOK AT BUILDING THE PHASE OUT OF THAT [27:25] TO INCLUDE MORE AREAS AROUND DINKY TOWN. THERE'S ALREADY A PEDESTRIAN [27:32] LIGHTING CORRIDOR ORDINANCE THAT GIVES AN OVERLAY OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE FOR THAT AREA. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME [27:37] STATE DOLLARS BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS THAT PROJECT AS THE CITY HAS ALSO STEPPED UP IN THAT ASPECT AND HAVE BEEN IN [27:44] CONVERSATIONS WITH LEADERS SAYING OKAY, WE DID OUR BIT. IT'S A SHARED GROUP PROJECT, [27:49] OTHER FOLKS CAN BRING MONEY TO THE TABLE AS WELL. SO AGAIN LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING FUTURE CONVERSATIONS AROUND [27:54] THESE THREE PRIORITIES THAT I NAMED AND WANTED TO GIVE A HEADS UP THAT I'LL BE BRINGING THEM FORWARD IN EARLY JANUARY. [28:01] >> THANK YOU. I'LL RECOGNIZE THAT COUNCILMEMBER OSMAN AND [28:07] COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN HAVE JOINED THE MEETING. AND I PUT MYSELF IN QUEUE TO KIND OF JUST SPEAK A LITTLE BIT [28:16] TO LOOKING AHEAD INTO NEXT YEAR. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY, I'LL USE YOU AS A MODEL. [28:21] NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO START HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH MYSELF AND THEN DIRECTOR TOPENKA FOR US [28:28] TO REALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT OUR LEGISLATIVE ITEMS THAT MEMBERS WANT TO BRING FORWARD INTO THE [28:35] NEW YEAR. AND WHAT PRIORITIES LOOK LIKE. WANTED TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS NEXT YEAR [28:40] THAT WILL BE JOINING THE COUNCIL TO GET AN INTRODUCTION TO THE [28:45] IGR TEAM SINCE WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BEFORE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. BUT NOW IS A REALLY GREAT TIME [28:51] TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND ALSO JUST UNDERSTANDING TYPICALLY WE DO OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AT THE END OF THE YEAR. [28:56] BUT OUR AGENDA AT THE END OF THE YEAR IS EXTREMELY PACKED. SO WE ARE JUST SHIFTING IT TO [29:02] THE TOP OF THE YEAR. SO IF YOU HAVE IDEAS SIMILAR TO COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY THAT YOU [29:09] WANT TO SHARE WITH ME AND DIRECTOR TOPENKA, THAT WOULD BE [29:14] GREAT. I DID HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION AND MORE SCJUST LIKE AN OPPORTUNITYO [29:20] SHARE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DETAIL WITH THE BODY. SO CURRENTLY WE ARE TAKING UP THE SIGNS ORDINANCE IN THE [29:27] BUSINESS HOUSING AND ZONING COMMITTEE, AND A LOT OF THE THINKING AROUND THAT ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF OFF PREMISES SIGNS, [29:35] THE INCREASE OF THOSE SIGNS AND THEN THE DIGITIZATION, THERE WE [29:41] GO. THE DIGITIZATION OF THOSE SIGNS ARE LOOKING AT A PAUSE OR A PROHIBITION FOR SOME TIME FOR [29:48] SPE SPECIFICALLY THIS REVENUE GENERATION ASPECT. AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD [29:54] HAVE SOMEONE JUST KIND OF SPEAK TO THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE POLICYMAKING DECISION THAT WE'RE [29:59] HAVING RIGHT NOW AND THIS LEGISLATIVE ITEM. [30:05] >> THANKS, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. I WILL START AND THEN CALL UP FOLKS FROM CPED IF THEY WANT TO [30:11] FILL IN. SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS TO THE POLICY THAT'S GOING THROUGH BHZ [30:17] COMMITTEE. AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON ALL OF THOSE. BUT ONE PIECE OF IT AND ONE IDEA THAT HAS COME UP IS THIS CONCEPT [30:25] OF AS SEEN IN SOME OTHER CITIES, DENVER AND A COUPLE OTHERS THAT MS. FALANA MENTIONED, THERE ARE [30:32] CITIES THAT HAVE HAD FOR ALLOWING A NEW SIGN IN A CERTAIN DISTRICT WHERE THERE'S AN [30:38] OVERLAY, THERE IS A FEE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND THEN THAT FEE CAN GO INTO PAY FOR THINGS LIKE PUBLIC ART [30:44] OR LIGHTING OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN AN AREA. [30:49] WE WOULD NEED TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE A FEE OR TO DO A DISTRICT LIKE THAT, WE WOULD NEED [30:57] LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. WE HAVE LOOKED AT SOME MODELS OF [31:03] WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE. IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING SIMILAR TO AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF [31:09] SOME KIND WHERE YOU HAVE A CERTAIN DISTRICT WHERE WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE THAT FEE. [31:14] BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL FOR. SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT [31:21] REFLECTED HERE AND THEN HAVE HEARD THAT IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH BHZ. [31:27] WE'RE PRETTY EARLY IN STARTING TO TALK WITH OTHER CITIES ABOUT THIS. [31:32] I THINK THERE IS SOME INTEREST, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD, [31:44] WILL TAKE SOME EFFORT, I THINK, TO MOVE FORWARD AT THE LEGISLATURE. SO WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF [31:50] DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS AND FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO MOVE THAT FORWARD. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO SARAH [31:57] MILNER FROM CPED. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. [32:03] MY NAME IS SARAH MILNER, I'M THE POLICY RESEARCH AND OUTREACH MANAGER IN CPED. [32:09] I WILL ECHO WHAT WAS SAID AND ALSO IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION YOU [32:14] WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, WE'RE HAPPY TO OFFER ANY BRIEFING OR FURTHER CONVERSATION ON HOW THESE TWO PIECES CONNECT TO EACH OTHER. [32:20] >> THANK YOU, REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I'LL JUST MAKE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT ITEM. I THINK OUR STAFF IS WORKING ON [32:28] THIS PHASE ONE OF THE SIGNS ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE DIGITAL OFF PREMISES. [32:34] AND THEN THE GOAL IS TO GO INTO A PHASE TWO ONCE THERE SEEMS TO [32:39] BE A LOT OF SHARED COMMITMENT TO GO INTO A PHASE TWO TO TALK ABOUT OFF PREMISES SIGNS AND [32:47] TURNING THEM INTO DIGITAL SIGNS. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING [32:54] THAT WE REALLY, REALLY PRIORITIZE PUSHING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE IN A [32:59] MOMENT WHERE WE NEED AS MUCH REVENUE GENERATION TOOLS AS POSSIBLE. AND THIS CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY [33:06] FOR US TO HAVE IT. ONE THING THAT I WILL NOTE AND I THINK IT WILL BE A SUGGESTION TO [33:12] OUR IGR TEAM IS WHILE I APPRECIATE WE'RE GOING IN [33:19] FOCUSED ON AN ARTS AND SAFETY DEDICATION, I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO KIND OF EXPAND BEFORE WE [33:26] LIMIT OURSELVES TO THAT. I'M INTERESTED IN IT BEING ABLE [33:32] TO GO TO THE GENERAL FUND OR BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT INITIATIVES THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IN COMMERCIAL [33:39] CORRIDORS AND DIFFERENT CORRIDORS THAT NEED EXTRA VIBRANCY. ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO SEE [33:46] A LARGE INCREASE OF DIGITAL SIGNS OR NEW BILLBOARD SIGNS WHERE WE'RE LETTING GO OF THIS OLD CREDIT SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED [33:55] FOR ESSENTIALLY A MONOPOLY IN OUR CITY OF WHO GETS TO HOLD BILLBOARDS AND OWN THEM AND [34:01] PROFIT. SO I SEE A FUTURE OF REALLY LARGE EXPANSION AND IF WE'RE GOING TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY [34:07] FOR ADVERTISEMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT REVENUE, I THINK OUR CITY, PARTS [34:12] OF OUR CITY THAT HAVE BEEN UNDERINVESTED IN FOR DECADES [34:18] DESERVE TO HAVE AN IN TO THAT FUNDING. BECAUSE EVERYBODY GOES INTO [34:23] THOSE AREAS AND VIEWS THOSE SIGNS AND PARTICIPATES. AND SO I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO [34:28] CONSIDER A MORE EQUITABLE WAY TO SHARE THAT REVENUE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. [34:35] WITH THAT, I AM NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, SO I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND [34:41] FILE THAT PRESENTATION. AND NOW MEMBERS, THE LAST ITEM WE HAVE IS RECEIVING AND FILING [34:48] OUR FAVORITE PART WHICH IS AN UPDATE ON THE FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS AFFECTING THE CITY OF [34:54] MINNEAPOLIS. I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR TOPENKA AGAIN TO BRIEF US ON THIS ITEM. [35:00] AND I BELIEVE LAUREN OLSEN WILL ALSO BE HELPING WITH THIS PRESENTATION. [35:07] I'LL JUST WELCOME LAUREN OLSEN UP. [35:23] >> GOOD AFTERNOON ALL, OR IT'S STILL MORNING. GOOD TO BE HERE. I'M LAUREN OLSEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS [35:28] REPRESENTATIVE. AND I AM HERE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF FEDERAL UPDATE. [35:37] WE WILL COVER THE CONCLUSION TO THE SHUTDOWN AND A FEW OTHER ITEMS. WHOEVER WASN'T FULLY FOLLOWING [35:48] THE DISCUSSION OF HEMP AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WE WILL GO BACK [35:56] OVER THAT ISSUE. I THINK EVERYBODY IS AWARE THAT THE 43 DAY SHUTDOWN FINALLY CAME TO AN END ON NOVEMBER 12TH. [36:02] THAT WAS THE LONGEST SHUTDOWN IN UNITED STATES HISTORY. [36:12] THE RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE WAS THAT SOME OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS JUST FUNDED THROUGH JANUARY 30TH. [36:17] AND THEN THERE ARE A FEW AREAS THAT ARE FUNDED THROUGH [36:23] SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORMAL FISCAL YEAR. [36:28] SO THERE ARE STILL NINE BILLS OUT THERE THAT CONGRESS NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON AND COME TO [36:33] AN AGREEMENT BY JANUARY 30TH. IF NOT, WE RISK THAT THERE COULD [36:38] BE ANOTHER SHUTDOWN POTENTIALLY. BUT THERE WERE A FEW BILLS THAT [36:45] DID GET PASSED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR. AND THOSE BILLS WHICH INCLUDED THE USDA OR EGG BILL INCLUDED [36:52] SNAP FUNDING AND WIC FUNDING AT [36:59] I BELIEVE 2025 ENACTED LEVELS. SO THAT PROVIDES STABILITY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS WHICH IS GOOD AND THEY WILL NOT BE A PART OF THE [37:09] DYNAMICS THAT WOULD EFFECT THE JANUARY 30TH DEADLINE. SO THOSE ARE FUNDED WHICH IS NICE. [37:14] THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION WERE ALSO AMONGST [37:19] THE BILLS THAT WERE FUNDED AND ALSO ONGOING FUNDING FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SO FOR [37:24] CONGRESS AND THEIR STAFF. [37:35] THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS INCLUDED IN THIS BILL BESIDES THE ONGOING FUNDING. THERE WAS A COMMITMENT TO [37:40] REIMBURSE STATES FOR FUNDS THEY USED TO CARRY OUT FEDERAL PROGRAMS DURING THE SHUTDOWN, [37:47] THAT'S GENERALLY INCLUDES ANY EXPENSES RELATED TO SNAPS. IT DIRECTS THAT LAYOFFS THAT [37:53] OCCURRED DURING THE SHUTDOWN BE REVERSED AND THAT FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES RECEIVE BACKPAY WHICH [37:59] BECAME AN ISSUE OF DEBATE EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LAW TO THAT EFFECT ANYWAY. [38:04] BUT THE AGREEMENT MAKES CLEAR THAT THE FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES WOULD RECEIVE BACKPAY. [38:09] WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING THIS ISSUE WITH LAY OFFS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LAY OFFS WITHIN [38:16] HEALTH, WITHIN THE OFFICE OF POPULATION AFFAIRS SPECIFICALLY WHICH IS A PART OF THE [38:24] GOVERNMENT WHICH FACILITATES SOME OF OUR PROGRAMMING THAT WE PROVIDE AT SCHOOL-BASED CLINICS [38:30] FOR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION FOR EXAMPLE. AND THERE WAS SUCH SIGNIFICANT LAY OFFS THAT OCCURRED DURING [38:35] THE SHUTDOWN THAT WE WERE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO EVEN CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER [38:41] THESE SERVICES. WE CONTINUE TO WAIT AND SEE IF [38:47] THOSE JOBS ARE RESTORED. SO THAT'S A POSITIVE THING. [38:55] ANOTHER THING IS THAT THE AGREEMENT PROHIBITS ANY OTHER MASS LAYOFFS THROUGHOUT END OF [39:00] THE YEAR FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH. IT ALSO ENSURES ONGOING FUNDING [39:06] FOR THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE THAT OFFICE ALLOWS CONGRESS TO KEEP TABS ON HOW THE [39:12] ADMINISTRATION IS HANDLING THE APPROPRIATIONS THAT IT RECEIVES AND HELPS GET GOOD NONPARTISAN [39:21] INFORMATION. AND THERE WAS SOME THREATS THAT SOME PEOPLE DID NOT SUPPORT FUNDING FOR THAT OFFICE. SO THAT IS POSITIVE. [39:30] AS YOU KNOW, A MAJOR ISSUE OF DISCUSSION DURING THE SHUTDOWN [39:36] OF COURSE WAS HOPES TO EXTEND THE ENHANCED AFFORDABLE CARE ACT [39:41] TAX CREDITS. AS YOU KNOW, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER THUNE [39:47] COMMITTED TO HAVING A VOTE ON THIS TOPIC IN DECEMBER. SO WE CAN KIND OF AWAIT MORE DETAILS ON THAT. [40:00] AND THEN I WILL CALL UP M MR. HUSER ON THIS ITEM. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ISSUES [40:05] THAT CAME UP IN THIS SHUTDOWN BILL THAT KIND OF CAME AS A [40:10] SURPRISE TO PEOPLE, TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND ONE OF THEM RELATED TO PROHIBITING THE SALE OF PRODUCTS [40:18] THAT INCLUDE THC AND I'LL LET STEVE TALK ABOUT THE DETAILS AND [40:23] THEN WRAP UP. THANK YOU. [40:29] >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, OR AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WAS [40:35] A CHANGE TO THE FEDERAL HEMP DEFINITION. WITHOUT GETTING TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS OF THAT, THE BASICS ARE [40:41] THAT THE MOST IMPACTFUL CHANGE WAS THEY LOWERED THE AMOUNT OF THC THAT IS ALLOWABLE WITHIN HEMP PRODUCTS TO A POINT WHERE [40:46] THESE PRODUCTS THAT ARE BEING MADE AND THE PRODUCTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE THINGS LIKE [40:52] HEMP EDIBLES, THC EDIBLES, LOW-DOSE BEVERAGES, THINGS LIKE [40:58] LOTION, POSSIBLY LIKE TEXTILES, THINGS THAT USE HEMP IN ALL OF ITS DIFFERENT FORMS AND DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF HEMP ARE [41:04] NOW IMPACTED BECAUSE THAT LEVEL IS REDUCED TO VERY LOW. [41:09] WHAT THIS IMPACTS THEN IS WHAT AND HOW THESE PRODUCTS CAN BE [41:15] MANUFACTURED WITH HEMP-DERIVED THC AND CBD. [41:24] SO WHAT WAS ABLE TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO THIS DEFINITION AND WHAT CAN HAPPEN FOR THE NEXT YEAR UNTIL THIS IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED IS [41:30] THAT THE BIG THING IS BEING ABLE TO MOVE PRODUCT ACROSS STATE [41:36] LINES AS WELL AS ACCESS TO FINANCE AND BANKING. SO FOR AN EXAMPLE IF SOME SORT [41:43] OF A HEMP EDIBLE IS USING THE THC THAT IS DERIVED FROM HEMP, SO THERE IS A PROCESS BY WHICH [41:49] TO PULL THC OUT OF HEMP. THOSE ARE INPUT PRODUCTS THAT CAN GO INTO OTHER PRODUCTS LIKE [41:55] EDIBLES, GUMMIES, THC BEVERAGES. SO THAT PRODUCT CAN BE MOVED ACROSS STATE LINES TO THEN BE [42:02] MANUFACTURED IN ONE STATE AND THEN THAT PRODUCT THEN UNDER THE [42:08] OLD FEDERAL DEFINITION COULD THEN BE SOLD IN OTHER STATES AS WELL. SO A BEVERAGE THAT WAS [42:13] POTENTIALLY MADE IN MINNESOTA COULD THEN BE SOLD IN A STATE LIKE WISCONSIN. [42:18] AFTER THIS IS IN FULL EFFECT, THAT WOULD NO LONGER BE LEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW. [42:25] WHAT WOULD STAY IN PLACE IN MINNESOTA IS THE STATE CANNABIS LAW. SO ANY PRODUCT THAT IS MADE [42:32] UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE FOR CANNABIS LICENSING AND PRODUCTION WOULD STILL REMAIN LEGAL IN MINNESOTA. [42:41] IT'S THE QUESTION OF WITH THE FEDERAL LAW DEFINITION BEING CHANGED, THOSE HEMP-DERIVED THC [42:48] PRODUCTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LEGAL WOULD NOT THEN BE ABLE TO BE SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES. FURTHER, THE MINNESOTA [42:54] BUSINESSES THAT ARE CREATING THESE PRODUCTS NOW HAVE IF THEY HAVE HEMP-DERIVED THC PRODUCTS, [43:02] LOW DOSE, THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO SOME FINANCING ASSURANCE AND BANKING SYSTEMS. [43:09] WITHOUT THAT, WHEN THIS IS IN FULL EFFECT, THOSE BUSINESSES WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO [43:14] OPERATE THE SAME AS THE NEW MINNESOTA LEGAL CANNABIS MARKET WOULD HAVE TO WHICH IS MORE OF I [43:21] GUESS YOU COULD SAY CASH BASED OR BANKLESS TYPE OF A FINANCING [43:26] SYSTEM. LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THIS GOES INTO EFFECT IN ONE YEAR FROM ENACTMENT. [43:33] SO THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES OVER THE YEAR, I'M AWARE THAT THERE ARE GROUPS THAT ARE [43:39] WORKING WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATORS TO MAKE THIS CHANGE, EITHER REVERT BACK TO THE OLD [43:44] DEFINITION OR MAKE SOME SORT OF A VARIATION OF THAT THAT ALLOWS FOR THE SALE OF THESE PRODUCTS. [43:51] SO I THINK I'LL JUST PAUSE THERE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER [43:57] STAFF HERE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU. [44:03] >> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? [44:09] ON THIS PORTION OF IT? OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. [44:16] MR. HUSER, CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER ABOUT HOW THE STATE LEGISLATURE COULD [44:22] POSSIBLY ADDRESS THIS THROUGH OUR CURRENT LOW-DOSE HEMP ORDINANCE? OR IS THERE A CREATIVE WAY TO [44:30] AMEND OUR STATUTE SO THAT THE BAN WOULDN'T LIMIT THE IMPACT [44:37] LOCALLY? >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, I AM NOT AWARE OF A [44:42] WAY IN WHICH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THEIR STATE LAWS TO GET OVER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE [44:49] PART OF THE IMPACT. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD BE CHANGED, IN MY UNDERSTANDING AND I WANT TO SAY I'M NOT AN [44:55] ATTORNEY, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE CHANGED IN MINNESOTA LAW THAT WOULD PREEMPT FEDERAL LAW. [45:03] SO WE CAN ONLY CHANGE STATE LAW AND ONLY HAVE IT APPLY WITHIN MINNESOTA. [45:08] THAT BEING SAID, THERE WILL LIKELY BE A LOOK AT HOW BECAUSE THE WAY IN WHICH LOW-DOSE THC [45:17] HEMP-DERIVED STATE LAW WAS WRITTEN, IT WAS WRITTEN WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF THIS FEDERAL DEFINITION THAT ALLOWED FOR [45:23] THESE PRODUCTS TO BE MADE AND SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES. SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKED AT TO SEE IF THERE ARE CHANGES [45:30] THERE THAT WOULD AT LEAST PROVIDE A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ASSURANCE FOR THESE COMPANIES THAT WOULD BE WORKING WITHIN A [45:39] MINNESOTA-ONLY REALITY. MY VERY QUICK AND CRUDE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDUSTRY IS [45:45] THAT THAT WOULD STILL BE DIFFICULT. A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE DONE, THE FINANCING, THE BUSINESS MODELS THAT THEY'VE [45:50] DEVELOPED WITHIN THE INDUSTRY ARE PREMISED ON THE LEGALITY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. [45:55] SO I THINK IT WOULD BE, WHILE THE STATE COULD MAYBE SMOOTH OVER SOME OF THOSE HURDLES THAT THEY'RE NOW FACING, IT WOULD BE [46:02] DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE LOSS AH -- OF MARKETS BEYOND THE STATE [46:07] OF MINNESOTA, IT WOULD BE HARD TO SMOOTH THAT OVER WITHIN STATE LAW. IF I'M BEING CLEAR ABOUT THAT. [46:12] >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND SORRY TO MAKE YOU THINK OUT LOUD HERE CREATIVELY. [46:17] BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL JUST, THAT CAME AS A BIT OF A SURPRISE AND WE HAVE A LOT OF LOCAL BUSINESS [46:24] OWNERS THAT HAVE INVESTED PRETTY HEAVILY IN THIS AND SMALL DISTILLERIES AND THAT. [46:30] SO I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW WE MIGHT FIND A WAY THROUGH IT. THANK YOU. [46:37] >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. [46:46] >> BY THE WAY, IT IS MR. HUSER'S BIRTHDAY, SO HAPPY BIRTHDAY. [46:51] >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY! >> I'LL JUST CONCLUDE HERE. SO BACK TO THE OVERALL FEDERAL [47:04] BUDGET. SO AS I NOTED, THERE ARE NINE APPROPRIATION BILLS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED FOR THE NEXT [47:10] FISCAL YEAR. SO AGAIN EITHER THEY CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND ADOPT A BUDGET BY JANUARY 30TH OR THEY CAN USE [47:16] A CONTINUING RESOLUTION AGAIN WHICH IS OF COURSE ALWAYS AN [47:22] OPTION AS WELL. THERE ARE STILL SOME EARMARKED PROJECTS THAT HAVE POTENTIAL IN [47:28] THIS PROCESS INCLUDING THE ONE EARMARK PROPOSAL FROM THE CITY THAT SURVIVED TO THIS POINT WHAT [47:35] IS $250,000 FOR LOGAN PARK RAIL [47:40] CROSSING PROJECT TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF EVERYONE INTERACTING WITH THE RAIL CROSSING IN THAT [47:48] AREA. WE DID ASK FOR I THINK ABOUT $1.8 MILLION. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE. [47:54] BUT THE AMOUNT THAT IS IN THE BILL CURRENTLY IS $250,000 WHICH [47:59] WE WILL BE VERY GRATEFUL FOR. ALSO AND THEN I GUESS FINALLY I THINK I'D BE REMISS NOT TO [48:07] ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT ONE ITEM THAT'S HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION IN CONGRESS IS THE EPSTEIN [48:13] FILES. AND THERE WILL BE, A VOTE IS EXPECTED ON THAT TODAY AROUND [48:19] 2:00. AS YOU KNOW THERE WAS A DISCHARGED PETITION WHERE IF A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS [48:26] AGREES, THEY CAN KIND OF COMPEL THAT AN ITEM IS BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR. AND THAT PETITION FINALLY GOT A [48:33] FINAL SIGNATURE FROM THE NEW MEMBER FROM ARIZONA WHO FINALLY GOT SWORN IN AFTER THE SHUTDOWN [48:39] ENDED. SO TODAY THERE WILL BE THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE. AND THEN LIKE ANY BILL, IT WILL [48:45] GO TO THE SENATE AND ALSO REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE. AND THEN YOU MAY ALSO BE AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS MOST RECENTLY STATED THAT HE SUPPORTS [48:51] RELEASING THE FILES. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THIS UNFOLDS [48:57] STARTING WITH TODAY'S CHAPTER IN THE STORY. [49:03] SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US ABOUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET? [49:10] >> I AM NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS. SO THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. [49:15] >> SO I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT PRESENTATION. [49:21] AND WITH THAT, MEMBERS, WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL BUSINESS TO COME [49:26] BEFORE US AND THE COMMITTEE TODAY IS ADJOURNED WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION.