Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for being patient.

Welcome to the regular meeting of the Business Housing and Zoning Committee for September 2nd, 2025.

I am Councilmember Jamal Osman, and I'm the chair of this committee.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to remind all council members staff and the public that this meeting are broadcast in live to enable greater public participation.

They include real time captioning to increase the accessibility of our proceeding to the community.

Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully transcribe all comments for the broadcast.

We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comment.

Today we'll be using the speaker management.

So please sign up.

At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll so we can verify a quorum.

Councilmember Rainville.

Present.

Cashman.

Present.

Jenkins is absent.

Chowdery.

Present.

Vice Chair Ellison is absent.

And Chair Osman.

Present.

There are four members present.

Let the record reflect we have a quorum.

Before we proceed to the public hearing on our agenda, we will first take our consent agenda, which item 7 through 24.

Item 7 is approving one liquor license.

Item eight is approving one liquor license renewal.

Item nine is approving three gambling licenses.

Item 10 is approving a nine gambling license renewals.

Item 11 is approving a street name change submitted by Councilmember Chowdry for Edmund Boulevard to become a Lena Smith Boulevard.

Item 12 is accepting a grant from Minnesota Association Workforce Board for Service of New Americans.

Item 13 is confirming a mayoral reappointment of direct authorsport to the family housing fund and board of directors.

Item 14 is approving a local historic landmark of the Nelson House 2628th Avenue North.

Item 15 is adopting an update to the administrative fine schedule increase penalty for sustained Title III violations.

Item 16 is accepting a grant for staff and commissioners to attend the Preserved Minnesota Conference.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I don't have any questions, but I did want to speak to item 11, which is the street name change that I am the applicant for, so I just wanted to recuse myself specifically for that this name change from Edmund Boulevard to Lena Smith Boulevard has been a long labor of love and community effort, and it's a really big deal that it has finally made its way over to the Minneapolis City Council and going to take its final vote, final action, and then will be effective if passed on September 11th.

For me as a council member, I started this nearly two years ago when neighbors came to me with a critical concern that Edmund Boulevard's name honors a figure, Edmund Walton, who was a harmful actor in our city's history, a man who actively upheld racial segregation through architecting racial covenants in our city and contributed to the generational disenfranchisement and trauma, black, brown, Asian, Jewish, Arab, indigenous communities in Minneapolis, and racial covenants in our city were used to segregate our communities and legitimize racial terror, and lead to long-term disinvestment in different parts of our community through redlining and laid the foundation for racial racially discriminatory policies and practices that still affect our communities today, namely in housing and home ownership disparities among BIPOC community members.

I also want to acknowledge that this work preceded me.

Community members for five years in total have been working on this effort for this name change, and I'm extremely proud of the work of my neighbors.

I want to shout out Reclaim Edmund, which has been the grassroots organization that's been a part of this.

I'll shout out Jesse and Mark who are here today that have been a part of this effort since the beginning.

And I also want to thank our city staff.

They have been phenomenal to work with figuring out the application process, getting it to the planning commission, and will be instrumental in the actual implementation, which we hope will be a celebration.

I would be remiss if I didn't speak to who Lena Alves Smith is, because this isn't about erasing history, it's about choosing to uplift history that's inclusive and uplift a history that has often been dismissed or forgotten.

Lena Alv Smith was Minnesota's first African American woman lawyer and a fearless civil rights trails trailblazer.

After graduating from law school in 1921, she became the first black female attorney licensed in the state.

She co-founded the Minneapolis Urban League, led the NAACP local chapter as its first female president, and chaired its joint legal redress committee.

Notable legal victories of hers include defending the Lee family in our city from a mob of intimidation in a home ownership dispute, suing the Nicolette Hotel for racial discrimination and protesting the University of Minnesota screening of the birth of a nation.

Her legacy endures with her long term her longtime home recognized on the National Register of Historic Places, and we are hoping to uplift her history here in Minneapolis, where because of these racial covenants, many places she was not able to call home, but she still was a fearless leader, so come now into 2025.

Neighbors of all ethnicities, races, religions can live on Edmund Boulevard.

And I'll just close with this.

This street is a part of my life, and I want to be proud of it.

Changing the name isn't about erasing history, it's about choosing to tell a better story, a story that includes all of us.

And so I'm asking you, let's pick a name that is forward-looking and inspires the next generations of kids who will live here and across our city.

And that name is Lena Smith.

So I humbly ask for your support.

I know it's on consent.

Um, but I thank you, and I I think our um community in Ward 12, and then all throughout the city of Minneapolis, Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Now I just wanted to take a minute to celebrate this as well, Councilmember Chowdhury.

You should be really proud of being able to leave a mark in the city like this and to be able to really change the environment.

That does shape us.

You know, these these streets that we call home, we refer to them every single day, and who we choose to uplift in our history really leaves an impact on who we believe to be important and of relevance in our city.

And I actually learned about Lena Smith from the theater district because of an amazing story of the Pantages Theater, which opened in 1916.

So I'll just read this story quickly, which is from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

It wasn't long after the Pantages Theater opened in Minneapolis in 1916 that a black woman entered its doors and started fighting an immediate battle to desegregate the theater.

Just months after opening, law school freshman Lena O.

Smith and four black men attended a performance and attempted to sit on the main floor instead of the balcony.

After being stopped, each filed a discrimination suit against the theater.

Smith lost her suit, but a string of suits that followed ended the Pantagus segregation policy.

And as we know from Councilmember Chowdhury, she later became the first African American woman licensed to practice law in Minnesota and served as the first funeral president of the local NAACP.

But I was really moved by learning about this story about her coming into the Pantages Theater and really just claiming her space when society was telling her she wasn't welcome at the time.

She rebuked that and has really changed the course of Minneapolis history.

So I'm really excited to be able to see her name and her recognition over in Ward 12.

I have one more thing I'd like to say about a different item.

This is on item number 24, which is the rental license ordinance, which is being referred to staff.

And I've had a brief moment to check in with the author, Councilmember Wandsley, but do plan to work with her on this ordinance as I have been uh disappointed with regulatory services enforcement of poor performing landlords and their rental license that have been granted to building owners such as 110 West Grant and the Brentwood, both in Loring Park, where residents didn't have heat for months at the Brentwood uh during the winter, and at 110 West Grant they've had floods, mold, and even dirty water coming out of their spouts, and yet our laws are not capable of enforcing the codes that we do have in place, or for some reason, um there have not been consequences for these building owners.

So I'm interested in seeing how this ordinance can help give regulatory services more tools to enforce the code and create dignified housing conditions.

And the way I see this ordinance is really about consumer protection.

If you're paying two thousand dollars a month, you deserve to have clean water and heat because that's in the agreement.

Uh so we should not be allowing landlords who don't provide those services for the cost that renters are paying to uh get away with it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, and just to add that I uh am also the author of this ordinance, and we will have more conversation as we come.

Um we're working with the staff and just trying to really make sure everyone in Minneapolis experience uh a safe place to rent.

All right.

Uh, with that, I'll move all items um for approval.

Pretone item 21 to its author, prefer item 21 and 22 and 23 to staff, and lastly, set item 24 for public hearing on September 16.

With that, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The eyes have it, and motion carries.

Alright.

Uh now we will proceed to the public hearing portion of our agenda.

First, we have a public hearing for liquor license with no entertainment for borders Italia.

Italiana located at 2308 5th Street.

I will welcome business license manager Amy Lingo to speak on this item.

Thank you, Chair Osman and Committee members.

I'm Amy Lingo, manager for Licenses and Consumer Services, and I'm presenting an application on behalf of Broders Cucina Italiana, owned by Molly's Incorporated.

The business is located at 2308 50th Street West in the Fulton neighborhood of Ward 13.

The applicant requests an on-sale liquor with Sunday sales and no life entertainment license.

Broeder's Coccina Italiana is upgrading their existing wine and strong beer license to a full liquor license.

Additionally, the applicant is expanding the adjacent space previously occupied by the Ted Beaman dental.

So it's an interior expansion as well.

They intend to expand into the space, creating a dining room.

The total seating will be 57, which includes the expanded area.

The hours of operation on the interior are Monday through Sunday, 8 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners within 600 feet of premises.

Notices were also sent to the Fulton Neighborhood Association, the Southwest Business Association, and Councilmember Linne Pomzano.

We received five responses, four in full support, and one who had concerns about parking.

There are no issues concerning this business or issuance of the license.

Licenses and consumer service divisions recommends approval of the on-sale liquor with Sunday sales, no entertainment license.

This concludes my presentations at this time.

I will stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing and see if there's anyone who would like to speak on this item.

Yes, come on up.

Yeah, so my name is Ken Stano.

I live about 10 blocks away from Broaders, but uh it's a situation where my concern in my particular area, which is Kingfield, seeing restaurants uh close down for any number of reasons, anchor restaurants, revival being one of them.

I see Brooders as expanding, and if giving them an opportunity to expand their liquor license, makes them more competitive, more attractive.

Anything along those lines, I'm all for it.

So I just wanted to throw my two cents in and just say it's like I'm not a frequenter of Broaders, but I do see them as a neighborhood anchor that should be given all the chances that they deserve.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

See no one else to speak.

Uh close the public hearing and um recognize Councilmember Chowdhury.

Yeah, just wanted to say uh we'll move this for approval.

All right, uh seeing no one else.

Um with that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right.

Um next we have a public hearing for sidewalk cafe license for North Star Delhi, located at 315 46th Street.

I will welcome again uh manager Emilingo to give us that presentation.

Thank you once again, Chair Osmond and Committee members.

I'm Amy Lingo, manager of licenses and consumer services, and I am presenting an application from North Star Delhi, which is owned by North Star Delhi LLC.

The applicant is requesting a sidewalk cafe license.

The business is located at 315 West 46th Street in the Tangletown neighborhood of Ward 11.

The North Star Delhi will be adding a sidewalk cafe license to its existing restaurant.

This sidewalk cafe will accommodate 12 patrons and it will be located on West 46th Street.

The proposed hours of operation are 11 a.m.

to 8 p.m., seven days a week.

Public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to the Tangletown Neighborhood Association and Councilmember Emily Koskey.

We have received six responses, all in support.

There are no issues concerning the business or issuance of this license.

Licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of the Sidewalk Cafe license.

This concludes my presentation at this time.

I'll stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing and recognize Bedroy Levin.

Welcome.

Hello, guys.

I'm uh Chef Pedro Wilkett, the chef at North Star Delhi, a hockey-themed restaurant representing the spirit of uh Minnesota and hockey.

And yeah, we're really happy to be in the neighborhood.

Uh we're a BIPAC owned business, black and brown own, proud.

And yeah, we hope to be in the neighborhood, have an impact and creating jobs and continue to expand in that neighborhood.

Yeah, we love it and we love your support in this uh venture.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll close the public here and recognize Councilmember Towery.

I was going to move this item for approval, Chair.

Yes, thank you, and thank you doing business for City of Minneapolis.

With that, all those in motion all oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Rainville.

Thank you, Councilmember Cashner for alerting the chair.

Uh Peter, I just wanted to uh wish you the best of luck and uh let you know that we're gonna miss you in the North Loop, but uh I understand why you moved, so thank you very much, and again, best of luck.

Look forward to dining in your restaurant again.

Great, all right.

With that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right, we have uh public hearing for extended operation license for Minneapolis Motormarked, located at 3301 Highwater Avenue.

I welcome Stephen Daniels from Business License to speak on this item.

Thank you, Chair Osman and committee members.

I'm uh licensed inspector Stephen Daniels with licensed consumer services.

I'm uh presenting an application for FKG Oil Company, Minneapolis Motor Mark, number 3305, located at 3301 Hiawatha Avenue South and Ward 9.

The current licenses are gasoline, Philly Station, uh General Tobacco and Food.

The applicant is requesting extended hours license.

Uh Minneapolis Motor Mark.

Number 3305 has been operating at this location since July 9, 1980.

This is a local gas station and grocery requesting a uh to remain open 24 hours daily.

Ours operation will be uh daily with doors open to the public from 6 a.m.

to 9 p.m., uh 24-7 with doors locked and window service from 9 p.m.

to 6 a.m.

They do not have any indoor uh outdoor seating at this location on August 12th, 2025.

Public hearing notices were sent out to the property owners within 300 feet of the premises.

Uh notices were also sent to the Lone Fellow Neighborhood Association and Longfellow Business Association with Council Member Jason Chavez.

We've received uh zero comments from the community.

Uh licensed consumer services division recommended approval of this extended hours.

Uh Minneapolis Motor Mark number 3305.

This concludes my presentation at this time.

I will stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing and recognize uh first person is Will B.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Uh we've been uh open for some 45 years, feel part of the community, and uh as we all know, we went through some rough times, and I was just thrilled with our neighbors' business and personal.

They came out to give us a hand, and everyone needed a hand during those times.

Uh we get a lot of traffic from uh commercial and uh airport traffic and being open for them and being able to provide services to them is key for both them and us.

And we would also like to acknowledge that we are one of the little guys.

We only have three stores in Minnesota, and uh we just ask that you know we we get an equal share.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh next person is Stephen Stephen D.

Steven here all right uh next person is Andrea Hernandez Andrea here you got it hi welcome hi I'm Andrea I'm the manager of the store we have been I've been there for 20 plus years um we have been open 24 hours and would like to continue 24 hours um we do have a lot of people that stop by in we're the only gas station in the surrounding areas that people like to get their drinks and their energy drinks to their overnight and to stay awake um we do a page or um I think that's all I have to say all right thank you thank you so much and next person is stay seeking no alright wonderful well is that anyone else see none uh close the public hearing and recognize councilmember Chavez and I see Councilmember Jason Shabbos also here from the board.

I will move this item for approval um I know that this is not in my ward but it's like neighboring right there and um I think you guys have been really good neighbors very conscientious and I know that you have been through some really really rough times as well and I've seen the outpouring neighborhood support and I also just think like this is a really good place to have this type of gas station I'm glad it's like a you guys are one of the smaller guys because of just like the nature of Hiawatha Avenue and the services you provide and I can just tell by you all showing up today that you just care a lot about the neighborhood and being a part of the community so thank you so much for coming out here today.

Thank you Chair Osman I'll make it quick not everybody has a nine to five job I think the service that you all provide is an important service to our neighborhood uh to our residents for folks that uh may work late night shifts may need to go to the store to get some food some water some drinks uh just very appreciative of you all coming down here and testifying in support I can't vote on this today because I'm not in the committee but I will be if my colleagues move forward with this FO council next week so I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Okay thank you.

With that motion to approve this item all those in favor say aye.

Aye and those opposed say nay the eyes have it and the motion carries thank you so much.

Alright we're going to take uh uh item four and five together since they are related I welcome councilmember chasing chavez to present both of this ordinance related to the commercial property sale and enforcement procedures and council vice president ishawning it's all good to go perfectly thanks here.

Hi everyone uh it's me Jason Chavez, meaning city council for the ninth ward and good afternoon Aisha Chuktai Vice President of the City Council.

And we're excited to bring forward the advanced notice of sale for commercial property.

This is an ordinance authored by my office Council Vice President Chucktai and Councilmember Wandsley.

We'll go over uh through the background details of the ordinance uh what's in the ordinance and why it's important.

So a few things to note, the economic impacts we know from the summer of 2020, particularly the civil unrest that impacted Minneapolis and the COVID 19 pandemic led to the involuntary displacement of many vital community supporting small businesses, especially in our cultural corridors.

We have heard from many small businesses in our cultural corridors about the need to support small business owners against outside displacement efforts that could sometimes be led by property companies and developers.

And we know that many of these small businesses that are struggling and are hoping to get some protection from outside displacement are our small locally owned BIPOC businesses.

We know that this ordinance before you today intends to increase the transparency and notification of sales of commercial properties, which could open doors for those historically left out of our out of this particular process when it comes to, for example, purchasing uh particular business.

And we know that the lack of transparency when a commercial building is sold makes it difficult, oftentimes impossible for neighborhood groups, nonprofits, and community partners, or even a tenant of a small business to participate in the process of not only the transparency but potentially purchasing uh business.

And in this ordinance, you'll see other few locations included, not only the cultural districts, but a part of North Minneapolis and the university area.

And we know that the university area has a unique uh needs and challenges around commercial development, but similar underlying issues around transparency and equity in property sales.

Thank you.

So, um, just moving to telling you a little bit more about uh the background for this this ordinance.

Um back in 2019, the city adopted the advanced notice of sale uh policy for the sale of affordable housing buildings, and uh the purpose of just making mention of this is to uh highlight for the committee that this type of policy is one that has been implemented by our city in the past, and this policy um seeks to build upon that work in the commercial property realm.

So, this this ordinance was originally developed in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd at the urging of community who came together to do the hard work of rebuilding our neighborhoods and our our commercial and cultural corridors that were impacted um by the aftermath um that came with the the murder of George Floyd.

Um this proposed ordinance would require the advance uh notice to come to the city of a proposed sale of a commercial property within an established cultural district, as well as properties near University Avenue Southeast and Washington Avenue North near the Mississippi River.

So this wouldn't apply to all commercial properties in the entire city and in downtown, but in a more narrowly tailored part of in narrowly tailored parts of our city.

Commercial property owners will be required to give notice to the city 60 days before uh commercial property is made available to sale, uh, made available for sale.

So the notice then comes to the city, and the city is able to publicly share that information about buildings that are going to be coming up for for sale.

Um ultimately this allows for more transparency in the process to better facilitate opportunities for commercial ownership.

Uh as council vice president Chug Tai noted, this was modeled in part of an existing ordinance that is the city's books that requires advanced orders of sale for naturally recording affordable housing, so it's mirroring similar aspects of that ordinance.

It was developed in coordination with conversations with CPED and with the support of the city attorney's office, which we greatly appreciate after discussions with council members that uh talked about specific areas in their neighborhoods, um, property owners and community stakeholders.

Uh, there was conversations we had with stakeholders that wanted us to exclude downtown, which is what we did, and there was conversation with stakeholders about how we can actually have an enforcement aspect of this ordinance, uh, to make sure that it is being followed, which we attempted to do in the ordinance as well.

So as long as property owners provide advanced notice, they may choose to complete the sale to any buyer on any timeline that they choose, and a violation results in default administrative fines of $250.

A second or subsequent offense in 24-month period is subject to a fine, double the amount of the previous find up to a maximum amount of $2,000 per violation.

So we wanted to make sure that this was through consultation through conversations that we had with various folks in the community.

So the purpose of this ordinance is to add an additional tool to increase transparency in the realm of commercial property transactions, helping to increase opportunity awareness, because we know local on uh local ownership can have stabilizing effects in the local commercial district activity.

Especially when we pair this with existing programs that the city offers, like technical assistance programs, low-interest loans, and um and the ownership and opportunity fund, we can help local entrepreneurs in strengthening our our commercial corridors and local economy.

We know that relationships are an important aspect of how commercial real estate markets operate, and without substantial transparency, the knowledge of property acquisition benefits those who are already in the know.

Ultimately, this relatively closed ecosystem reduces the likelihood of buyers who come from black indigenous people of color and immigrant communities in participating in these transactions, and in turn, these transactions can further destabilize small businesses and increase wealth gaps, leading to displacement and economic disruption, which not only affects the individual owners and operators, but also the surrounding community.

So when we when the uh a key goal of this policy is increasing opportunity for those who are traditionally left out of these transactions, as we mentioned earlier, through conversations with colleagues, we were able to add an additional spot in North Minneapolis and the university area.

We know that throughout the country, areas surrounding college campuses have unique challenges around equitable development and commercial property ownership.

There are different underlying dynamics from cultural district, but outcomes to our uh knowledge are the same.

There's a lack of transparency and equity in commercial property sales, and while high turnover is a feature of university areas, we know that gentrification, tricep cost of housing and the cost of living and the proliferation of chains rather than small businesses damages neighborhood character and local economic development.

We love supporting our small businesses, and we want to see more small businesses in our city.

Uh, we know that this ordinance, the commercial advanced and also sale, is a tool that can help create more equable, vibrant university commercial areas that support our students.

So, in addition to this policy being limited to certain commercial areas in our city, there are a series of exemptions that I'm gonna walk you through.

I'll first note that this list of exemptions was largely generated by stakeholders within the commercial property realm and our business community that that helped us inform these exceptions exceptions.

Sorry, exemptions.

Uh the first of these is um when the ownership of a property is changed involuntarily as a result specifically of foreclosure or tax forfeiture.

The second exemption is when the ownership of a property um is changed as a part of a real estate portfolio, in which that commercial it, you know, so let's say that an entire portfolio owned by an owner is being transferred, um, then it includes a variety of different types of properties, perhaps apartment buildings, perhaps um other residential assets as well.

Um, if commercial properties uh account for 50% or less of the total value of the portfolio, then this 60-day advance notice of sale policy does not apply, even if it is in a cultural district.

Um when conveyance occurs due to corporate restructuring, where um and this is specific to when the new owner of the commercial property is controlled by the old owner or the new entity is controlled by the old entity.

So this is the product of a of a um corporate restructure.

Um and then the fourth exemption um, you know, builds upon the the third one, but specifically is looking at um allowing us to account for the value of a whole portfolio and not just the individual asset in the case of mergers, acquisitions, spin-off split-offs, and um divestiture or other types of business transfer.

And now I guess to Chair Osman, would you like us to answer questions or would you like to open the public hearing first?

Yeah, no, I think we're gonna go to the publicator first, then we'll have plenty of questions.

Great, thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Um with that, I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing, and this is for both items.

And um recognize first person as Sarah Anderson.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, council members.

Thank you, uh Councilmember Chavez, and um appreciate you putting forward this effort and our conversations that we've had on this content.

Um just so you know, I'm Sarah Anderson.

I represent the Building Owners and Managers Association of Greater Minneapolis.

So our members are the building owners and operators of the buildings across the Twin Cities.

We have been around since 1904.

Um, so it's a long uh time that we've been a partner with the city on making sure that we're vibrant and can continue to be a great place to live and work and play.

Um I spoke with rep uh council member Chavez back in February on this issue.

Um we expressed concerns about what this would mean.

And I just want to take a moment to kind of go through some of those concerns.

Um I know that the intent of this is to help out local ownership, but what you're going to actually see is you're going to delay the entire process for local ownership.

I was speaking with a different uh council member on a business called Merigold that has had some success and they worked with their neighboring building to purchase that building.

And under this ordinance, they would have had to wait 60 days for that to happen.

Neighbor to neighbor, you know, no issues there.

They want to make the sale, it makes sense.

Um, it's allowing for that business to expand.

And under this, they'd have to wait 60 days.

So why is that such a big deal?

A lot comes into play in that 60 days.

Timing is everything, and I'm sure if you've had to purchase your own home and watch those interest rates with fear and dread, um, you want to make sure that you get the best interest rate possible.

And we saw that in the home ownership side of things where individuals committed to building a house, for example, that wasn't going to be done for maybe 10 months, and that 10 months was due, and that's when their interest rate came into be, and they lost out on that opportunity.

Wow, that's quick.

That's all the timing.

Sorry, we we gave two two minutes each person, but go ahead, Robert Rob, please.

Appreciate it.

Yes.

So timing is everything.

Um this also ignores existing purchase options.

A lot of um commercial real estate deals have existing purchase options within their setup.

So that could be a tenant that's in that building, it could be the neighbor across the street, and this would delay that as well.

Um there's also legal obligations of notice, so that they're required to do.

So there's a lot of issues with that.

And I would encourage you to, if you wanted to purchase a building, if you just Google it, you can find about 10 different websites right off the bat that tell you what buildings are for sale.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

And you can always submit a routine statement through the council.

All right.

Uh next person is Ross.

Hi.

Welcome.

Yeah, two minutes.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, uh, council members.

My name is Roz Peterson, and I'm the public policy director for NAAP, which is the commercial real estate trade development association.

We have about 600 members and represent of over 300 businesses, many of who work and play and live in Minneapolis as well.

I'm also a commercial broker and a building owner.

So I'm here to voice some concerns that we have heard from members regarding the advanced notice of sale requirement to the city before selling commercial real estate.

The 60-day prior notice will not help BIPOC purchases uh purchase commercial real estate and will create an additional hurdle that could stifle a sale, add costs, and therefore lower the property value.

This proposal creates roadblocks for buyers and sellers, making it public before it is on the market and could actually help drive out, drive out those local owners and with out of state buyers potentially learning about this before the local people have an opportunity.

Current programs such as the ownership and opportunity fund are working.

We are having we are seeing local ownership with our BIPOC community.

And also we're here to help.

If you go to Mincar.org, that is commercial real estate trade association of brokers.

And if you're looking to purchase, we don't even cost money because typically our commission comes out of the sale of a property, and we're happy to help people find properties, help with uh startups and negotiate win-win deals with buyers and sellers.

There is transparency in commercial real estate.

Um, county properties, tax records, for example, list every single owner and their address to reach out to them, as well as the many websites that Sarah mentioned too.

All real estate is for sale, it doesn't need to be on the market.

The owners are public already.

If a property is under a contract, the owner is already required to notify the tenants under the terms of the lease, and the ordinance ignores existing terms and mortgages and current leases, which may include an option to buy or calling the loan, which uh such a no notice is required.

And just really quickly, even though this proposal is only for certain areas outside institutional money, such as pension funds, have told us they will not invest in Minneapolis with these types of requirements.

That will reduce commercial real estate values, which in turn raise taxes on your residents.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh, next person is Matt.

Come on.

And yeah, is it I'm fine?

There you go.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Uh good afternoon, council members.

My name is Matt Ann Fang.

I'm the executive director of the Minnesota Commercial Association of Real Estate and Realtors.

Uh Roz kind of mentioned a little bit about what we do.

Uh, we are made up of uh our association is made up of about 1300 commercial real estate brokers, all of whom uh well our organization is in opposition to this ordinance.

Um, Roz did mention that there are tools available to anyone that they could hire a commercial real estate broker to uh help them find a space that is is for sale or even approach the landlord that they have and help them negotiate and negotiate with that seller, negotiate with the landlord, and all and hopefully ultimately close on that property.

Another note that I I don't think uh either of the other two said yet, but there isn't a time that a building isn't for sale, it's always for sale.

Uh approach the owner and try and uh create an offer.

Um, if they want to if uh individuals who are looking to buy are interested we have a free and public facing uh website that will show them properties that are for sale perhaps in a location that is more preferable than the one they are currently in and I guess the last thing I want to say is um what you're trying to establish will will harm what the potential uh for an existing tenant to buy uh an existing or a property that they may be housed in or their business may be housed in at that particular time uh when that individual or that company wants to approach the landlord and say I want to buy this building the the landlord may not have considered that it was going was interested in selling at that time and now in order to be uh entertain that person's offer he now noted the owner needs to now notice the city 60 days in advance thus allowing publication um multiple people interested in in that space and the potential to offer more money uh and that's edging out that tenant that's all I have for now so any questions we'll be around thank you so much uh next person is Ricardo Perez hello uh chair council members my name is Ricardo Perez I use him and his pronouns I'm a coalition organizer with the Alliance help staff the Blue Line Coalition and I'm currently serving as the chair of the Ente Displacement Community Prosperity Program Board.

So all that being said um I just want to um you know um be loud about our support uh for this measure to give people time we know that culture drives economic activity we know that economic activity drives development and we know that without any sort of protections development can lead to involuntary displacement whether it's residential commercial or cultural so this measure again um we celebrate this intentionality and we hope that it can be accompanied by other measures that can give long term legacy residents and business owners a chance of not only surviving these type of changes but thriving as a result of our community set of actions that we can take so thank you for your time and implementing this important protection.

Thank you so much.

Are there anyone else who would like to speak on this item yes welcome.

Good afternoon chair and council members my name is Juan Luis I am also a coalition at the alliance I help staff our housing coalition so the Housing Justice League and the Equity in Place Coalition.

Yeah I think this is great legislation in order to um create a more established system and where business owners and residents can have more accountability more touch points more opportunities to know what is happening in relation to where their businesses are operating or where they call home.

So having an advanced notice of sale would not only equal the opportunity for folks to be able to have touch points to yes be able to look up who their owners are but then even a more stricter touch point in that there has to be some some accountability and where uh an outreach where a tenant could have to their owner has to actually be followed up with right there's an actual process where folks are being held accountable in terms of how to actually communicate with one another to potentially get more opportunities to know if a property is being put up for sale or not so as much as that that's nothing that prevents that uh that communic that communication that relationship from being established today but there's also nothing that enforces that communication that is that relationship to move forward when there is a disagreement on the table.

So I think this advanced notice of sale helps in clarifying some of those gray areas where tenants are forced to figure that out on their own, whether they're commercial or residential tenants.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Yes, welcome.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and and council members and my name is Charlie Barba, and I'm the coalition organizer with the Business Resource Collective.

We operate regionally in the Twin Cities, but have members that operate statewide.

And many members within Minneapolis and a lot of the cultural districts, especially, we're in strong support of this especially to advocate for small business owners who are immigrant and BIPOC, maybe not English, maybe English isn't their first language.

Maybe they need to uh collectively um figure out an alternative financing methods for um for uh purchasing, but either way, uh you know that that time could be really valuable to a tenant that's already there.

Um that time could be really valuable for um for the entire community, maybe for even for um uh uh like community um purchases uh that are like you know intending to be like um uh staff owned uh etc.

So uh anyway, business resource collective, uh organization of many small uh business uh TA providers uh who are working directly with small business owners in our communities are um you know we find ordinances like this incredibly important for accountability, as one Liz was saying earlier.

So I I think that's all I have to say right now, but uh thank you, uh Councilmember Travis for bringing this up.

Thank you so much.

Uh seeing no one else to speak, uh close the public hearing, and also welcome back to Councilmember Jason Shavis and Council Fice President for questions.

Oh they can sit over there and answer questions, I guess.

I put myself in QI um really I understand the issue uh I understand the issue we're trying to solve um on 2020 uh when we had the civil unrest, we had entire Lake Street burn down, um, people out of business.

Uh and the questions that was raised during that time was that you know we will have you know people from outside the city, corporate companies kind of taking over the commercial corridor and changing the entire cultural corridor on Lake Street and buying those buildings.

And this type of ordinance was conversation and and talked about it.

Um, and that was then.

Now it's different.

Uh Lake Street, that's the main, still cultural uh area where you know, folks from uh locally uh from the community, immigrants community to continue to thrive and do their businesses.

So my first question will be uh can you highlight what is the issue that we're trying to solve?

And also what data are we using?

You know, uh when it comes to who's buying it.

I really need to know last 10 months, whatever.

Who purchased those commercial buildings?

You know, what is those purchase conversation?

What was those, you know?

Are those from people from outside?

Are the tenants themselves?

Is it local?

Minority communities that have purchased those buildings.

Uh that's the first question.

Do we have any data of who's purchasing those buildings?

Because what I know, I don't have a data, but what I know so far is that on Caesar Avenue and West Bank area, um, a lot of minority East African folks are purchasing those buildings.

And they're and they are on the market, they come on the market and they've taken over.

One thing that we had a conversation was uh um the bar that's located there.

It's uh it's a hundred and twenty years historic bar.

I want to keep the bar going, but economically it doesn't make sense.

They are in uh in a depth, they could not, they had to sell it, and now local nonprofit mosque bought it, the building to make it more community.

It's just uh supply and demand, uh that works for that community around that area.

So just to come back to my original question, is that um what are we trying to solve?

What data are we using?

Uh who we see and to purchase, and also maybe my following question, I'll have it for the staff, but thank you.

Yeah, uh th thank you, Mr.

Chair, for for that question.

Um, uh and and just the additional context, it helps me understand um how you're approaching um the discussion here.

Um so you know, to address the first part of your question, which is what's the purpose of this uh ordinance and and or what what problem is it that we're we're trying to solve for.

So you know, as we mentioned in our presentation, ultimately the goal of this policy is to increase transparency in the realm of uh sales of commercial properties, which right now is a very um closed off ecosystem that um that primarily or or largely um it is is benefiting um those who are uh who have pre-established relationships, those who um are considered more in the know.

Um so this this the a goal of this policy is to um allow for uh for more local entrepreneurs and and business owners who come from uh the backgrounds that that make commercial districts what they are in the first place to be able to um to meaningfully participate, engage in and compete in in the sale of commercial properties.

Um to answer your second question regarding data, so that the the details around the sales of of commercial properties um and and demographic data um about uh about um new um sales or new owners as part of those transactions isn't something that's that's tracked by uh the city, but one benefit of this proposed policy is that the notice is actually happening with the city.

Um the city is the recipient of of the the notice and the and the the data that comes alongside with it.

So something that it allows the city to do is to better engage in and track um these types of trends, um, and then in turn to um further tailor some of our existing programs and policies um like our our low interest um uh loan options, like our technical assistance programs and more um to to better meet the the needs of our community and meet the intended outcomes of those policies and and this one.

And I can add a little bit more to that.

So part of the ordinance talks about when a transfer of ownership occurs, the new owner shall within 30 days deliver to each tenant of the commercial property and to the director of CPED, a written notice containing all the following information.

One that the property is under new ownership, and two, the name, phone number, email address, and address of the new owner.

So this ordinance will help us with some of that data that we don't currently have or that isn't under ordinance, and also I think if we need to amend it and add stronger language to this component ahead of full council uh to make sure that we have more of the that data that you're asking about.

We're more than happy as authors to make sure that if this needs to get expanded, we're happy to do so.

If it's enough, currently we can have conversations with staff, but at the end of the day, that data tracking is important, and I think this ordinance can help us do that.

Thank you so much.

Uh Council First President, cousin uh member Chavez.

I um for me is to um know what's what's happening right now is the people from the local area uh commercial area, local folks that live there, are they benefiting?

Are they being outrun on the market?

We don't know the sensors.

I I like to know the answers.

What I know so far is the West Bank area, as you can tell, minority communities are buying and and from the uh folks that on that area, but I like to know other areas in in the city, Broadway, um, and Lake Street, do we have uh minority communities uh that live there?

Are they being outrun?

Are they really benefiting the market we have today?

And that is the question that I would love to uh get answered and and know hopefully before before Thursday to um our council meeting um next full council meeting to just get those answers right because if if it's working right now and and if it's benefiting and I like to keep it that way and if it's if they're not benefiting um then yes, this ordinance might make sense, but but to see the data, it's it's really what you know, especially who has been purchasing the last 10 months, who really better just is there someone from Florida or someone like that or is it from someone from you know local Minneapolis uh property?

Those are the questions that that I have and I like to answer and some questions that was raised and during the public hearing or concern was that we're actually having um uh the commercial supply and demand flow um disrupted and now you might have more competition for the folks that not just the tenants who lives there, minority individual who lives in that building might make a deal with the owner, right?

But now you have because the city announced it, now you have multimillionaire individual coming in and kind of buying the whole thing, offering more.

If I'm a businessman, I'll sell it to whoever who offers more.

That's just the market, how it works.

But my question to uh see if I can put Dr.

C bit on the spot.

I like to know what the the opinion of of the city staff is and also is there anything the city does that we give notices in advance uh when it comes to sales.

Chair Osman, uh Eric Hansen, CPED director.

Um if I understand the correct question correctly, we do have a early notice of sale for housing.

That's what this ordinance is is based off of.

Um we will uh follow the will of the body if you're looking for our opinion um about what to do, and it yes, it is a notification to uh the CPED director and and that's it within the city, and then um responding to the data we don't track at the city um um purchases of properties, uh is sometimes difficult because most commercial real estate, most real estate in the city is is purchased through some sort of single asset LLC and we're not the registrar titles that's at the Hennepin County, so we don't get that data.

Um so we we can't tell you how much um how many commercial properties have been ex uh been traded over the last few years and who has purchased them.

Um if you were interested in that information, we could probably talk about a legislative directive, do some research.

Uh it would take some time.

You say on housing, what kind of notices do we give housing?

So how do we give notices to no it's for uh naturally occurring affordable housing affordable housing specifically?

Okay, all right.

Um thank you.

Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, yeah, I mean I think having good data on this is really important.

Um, although it would be it passing this ordinance and collecting this data would be quite a lift, I think, for CPED to also like make that data transparent.

Um so I guess what I've been grappling with this ordinance.

What I like about it is the need for better data on property ownership in the city and finding new ways of collecting it, sharing it.

It could also generate more applications to the ownership and opportunity fund, which I'm guessing we already get a lot of applications, but it would be great for us to unite on um funding that program to a greater extent and actually using that opportunity uh to help tenants in cultural districts BIPOC tenants in cultural districts to buy their buildings.

Um so I'm I'm really interested in that process, but I'm also very concerned about the unintended consequences of this ordinance.

Um the fact that we don't have evidence about what happens when we put a policy like this in place, it may work as the authors intend, it may not.

And I could see how the extra administrative requirements and uncertainty would reduce property values in the areas that we are trying to boost um in the cultural districts and keep them lower over time, which would hurt existing owner-occupied buildings, nearby homeowners, and limit opportunities for future BIPOC uh wealth building in these areas.

Um and could potentially reduce investment across the city overall at a time when we need it.

So uh given what's before me now, I'm uh no on this ordinance.

Thank you so much.

I will recognize Councilmember Chowder first, sign up and council memberingville right after that.

Or should I put Ryanville first?

No, I was in Q first.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um, thank you, Chair Osman.

Appreciate it.

Um thank you to the authors for working on this and um staff as well.

I am really really interested in the potential of this ordinance.

Um I think it should be a little bit striking that in our commercial corridors, specifically cultural corridors, we don't have uh direct understanding of how ownership is held or not held by community.

I remember in particular um after uh 2020 the murder of George Floyd, the uprisings and um many buildings being damaged, um, burnt, there was a huge worry among community members of property being bought up um from entities outside of the city of Minneapolis, and um a huge effort uh among local local business leaders, community members, foundations to try to ensure um that ownership remain local, and I think being eyes wide open about um where things are changing in terms of ownership of commercial property in our city in these cultural corridors is really key uh as a city.

Uh we benefit greatly from uh places like Lake Street, Central, Lowry, um, by the work of BIPOC community members and their culture, um, the diversity that they're bringing in, and when it's promoted that way, it's to generate more uh more tourism, more people coming into corridors ultimately for the goal of profit and hopefully shared profit for the community, um, and then knowing that I think it's important that these community members who our entire city benefits from deserves to have a chance at ownership, deserves more access, and I think this is an ordinance for a lot of c for consideration because we need to create more tools to ensure that we have less vacant storefronts.

This is obviously not a silver bullet tool.

We there's a lot of work to be done.

Um, but for that reason I'm really interested in supporting this.

I do hear that there is concern among my fellow council members, and I would encourage council members um to both investigate uh the benefits of this and and get that information for yourself, but also not to just assume um the that the arguments that this will lead to disinvestment and greater harm in our city are just outright true.

I think that deserves just as much investigation um as many of the policies that we've had in the city of Minneapolis.

I know uh adva advanced notice of sale for naturally occurring affordable housing.

There is a worry about that, and it's been a great thing for our city, it's been a great thing, especially amid a housing crisis, and we also know like um land is power in our country, and there is a growing culture nationally of uh venture capitalists, multinational c corporations buying up land um throughout uh throughout our communities for greater profit to the point in which none of the people within our community owned that's luckily not the case within the city of Minneapolis, but I do think this is pretty forward-looking.

So I will move this without recommendation, and I do have kind of just a really wonky policy question for the authors of stats.

Okay.

Could you just discern for me the difference between the two ordinances?

Like what does one lever do and what does the other do?

Yeah, one is the ordinance, the other one is the enforcement mechanism that allows us to enforce the ordinance, and we just had it to name it in the ordinance because it wasn't included previously.

Okay, so there are two separate ordinances.

One is actually implementing the policy, the other is giving the city the power to enforce it.

And that lands all within the CPED department, or is that also regulatory services?

CPED and if staff knows the answer that that question is planning and development which I would assume it would be CPED but the enforcement mechanism might be that's me.

Yes uh Dr.

Eric Hanson uh Mr Chair and uh Councilmember Chadtery uh it goes to the CPED director we as the administration will figure out how to enforce it uh it would likely take a few departments to administer go through the administration process great that's what I thought thank you right I'll recognize Councilmember Rainville then Councilmember Chavez.

Thank you I have a question for Director Hanson so how much staff time would this take to enforce and gather the data have you rough estimate do we have to hire two people three people Mr.

Chair and Councilmember Rainville if we're looking at a legislative directive we'd have to negotiate that just matters that it's a matter of time we don't typically track all of that data as far as enforcement it would depend on how many transactions are we are notified of and if they're following uh the process there's not a lot of staff time they're not following a lot of process we'd have to read administrative review process I don't know what the FTE count would be needed I have not done that analysis.

Okay thank you and uh I I do want to um ask uh one of the authors to to just explain uh what the current problem is I I'm not seeing the problem of uh buildings being sold uh in fact there's lots of anti-buildings especially along Lake Street and Avenue uptown uh where is the problem yeah so my understanding is that right now an owner can sell a building without even notifying a tenant which means that if you're a minority owned business for example on Lake Street which I have heard from many BIPOC small business owners who are tenants but not owners of a building having to then move to a different place because the building was sold without them even hearing any type of communication from the owner of the building so you have then tenants of commercial buildings being displaced involuntarily because the owner of a building sold it without even any communication or last minute communication or a lack of communication which then leaves a small business owner being moved out of our beautiful cultural corridors that could have had an opportunity to work with a nonprofit an opportunity to work with its community members uh the neighborhoods to have the ability to stay in the neighborhood for example and I've heard that from business owners on Lake Street a vast majority of whom are not owners of their own building but are tenants of their building so that is the issue and the concern that we're trying to target and you know I'm I'm hearing the concerns from committee members up here.

What I will say though is that we purposely left out downtown and we heard those concerns from 2020 we watered down the policy heavily and I'm hearing more concerns about wanting to water down the policy even more at some point we try to find a happy medium by bringing this ordinance forward by watering it down and we we still hear more concerns of it so at some point we're just trying to bring it forward because we know it's going to help our cultural districts and especially the tenants of buildings who don't own these buildings who want to stay in our cultural quarters like Lake Street.

I will tell you I find it very hard to believe that someone would buy a building and then kick off the tenant I think they buy the building because they know there's a tenant in it that's the logic that um my life experience has taught me I do have uh another question too have uh for one of the authors has any other city implemented this?

Do we have a city we can learn from?

I don't have an answer to that.

We are bringing this forward because this was work that started in the summer of 2020.

Impacts that not many cities in our country have faced, and we saw folks being concerned of gentrification and displacement, and we saw that we already had an ordinance in place for affordable housing uh and we know that the issues that tenants face in affordable housing units is similar to what commercial tenants experience.

So we saw that this works, and we haven't seen any concerns with our affordable housing advance orders of sale, so we shouldn't expect anything with the commercial property advanced orders of sale either.

Well, I would respectfully disagree that the that a tenant in a housing uh situation is similar to a tenant in a commercial property.

So uh I will not be voting uh for this, and uh I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much, and just want to clarify council member Chowdry has moved both ordinance for without recommendation to the full council, and I I do support that.

So uh councilmember chowder.

Yeah, I just I think this committee has just brought to light like uh many questions that people have, and I think we deserve to have the time to get the answers to that.

I also want to make sure that our other colleagues get to engage in this.

I think we should have this discussion at full council, and it I think it it's very clear.

Like this committee has a range of opinions, and so I think moving it without recommendation is the common sense choice at this point.

Um I'm really interested in getting a chance to speak with some of the cultural corridor leaders and also have a discussion with our staff about how advanced notice of sale has worked for naturally occur occurring affordable housing policy.

I just think we should definitely keep this on the table.

It's uh it's a forward-looking tool for us to consider as a major city that's continuously growing.

Yep, thank you so much.

Uh yes, uh, we are um short of uh members today or missing two colleagues or one two colleagues, yep.

Um so I uh definitely that will give me more time for maybe some of the authors to share some more information to convince me uh for yes for this ordinance.

Uh I'll recognize Councilmember Shavis.

Uh thank you, Chair Osman.

I just wanted to make it clear we did reach out to every council member and offered briefings and meetings.

So if council members are hearing this for the first time or they're hearing this uh from their computers and uh in this committee, I'd recommend responding to that email and sitting down with our office so we can give you a briefing, but that was offered to every single council member, and we have not met with anybody.

Thank you.

All right, seeing no one else, I will ask Clark to call the role motioning both ordinances forward without recommendation.

Is that correct?

Yes, Councilmember Rainville.

No cashman.

No, Jenkins is absent.

Chowdery.

Aye.

Aye.

Vice Chair Ellison is absent, and Chair Osman.

Aye.

There are two ayes and two names.

And can you clarify if that motion passes or fails?

That motion fails.

So point of clarification.

With that, what does what is the resolving action?

Does it stay within committee?

I'm hearing that up here.

Just want to clarify.

It does stay in committee.

You can refer it to staff or refer back to author as well.

Sorry, just refer back to author.

So if we just left it without a referral, just stay into committee until the next cycle.

I believe so.

Okay.

Motion to continue.

Okay, I will make a motion to continue, right?

Or do we need to make a motion?

Yeah, one cycle.

One cycle.

All right.

Uh please call the roll.

Motion to continue one cycle.

Councilmember Rainfield.

No.

Cashman.

No.

Chowdery.

Aye.

Chair Osman.

Aye.

There are two ayes and two nays.

That motion is like a point of clarification.

So, what what is the resolving action here?

I will invite City Clerk.

Mr.

Chair.

Absent an affirmative vote to have this sent to committee to council from this committee.

This matter will stay in this committee.

It's just not as publicly well known that the public won't have an understanding about what are the next steps for this.

It will stay at committee, though.

If you can't, it will administratively be continued in this in this committee.

Great.

You need an affirmative vote.

Other motions that are available, as the previous clerk said, would be to return it to author.

Or again, you could have another, any other any other motion that's available to the committee.

But at this point it appears that you're deadlocked, so I would say it's going to stay in committee.

And thank you.

I appreciate the clarification.

Okay.

Are we going to move to the next one?

Sorry, Councilman.

We have to get some something here to get your attention.

Oh, we're so we're on okay.

I didn't I don't realize that.

Thank you.

Uh I move that we return this uh to author.

Um, the roll?

All right.

Uh ask the clerk to call the roll.

On the motion to return to author, Greenville.

All right.

Cashman.

Aye.

Chowdery.

No.

Chair Osman.

No.

There are two ayes and two nays.

Thanks.

All right.

Uh I think that motion fails.

Uh we're just gonna take the suggestion of Sir Clerk and it's gonna remain in the clouds.

So we're gonna move to the next item.

All right.

Thank you everyone for being patient.

All right.

Uh last public hearing for 2026 is 2026 license fee schedule.

Before we open the public hearing, I'll welcome staff from budget, finance, proper services, and business license for the presentation.

Okay, good afternoon, Chair Osman, Council members.

My name is Ben Zimmerman.

I'm a principal, budget, and evaluation analyst in the budget division, and I'm here with my budget colleague Osa Akpata Tenu to facilitate the overarching presentation as it pertains to the recommended 2026 license fee schedule.

We will also be joined by staff from regulatory services and the health department who will speak to the fees for which substantive adjustments are being recommended, namely rental licensing and pollution control annual registration.

In terms of the agenda for this presentation, we will be covering three general areas.

First, we will explore some historical context for the annual exercise and our approach for this year.

Second, I will turn the presentation over to OSA as well as staff from regulatory services in the health department, and they will walk through in greater detail the 2026 recommendations.

Lastly, I will provide an update on the comprehensive fee study which is moving forward in response to the legislative directive authored by council members Wansley, Chigtai, and Payne.

Here is an illustration of the primary departments and divisions where a total of over 600 license fees are managed or implemented as published on the license fee schedule.

As you can see, that is three departments encompassing five divisions, namely business licensing within CPED, animal care and control and rental licensing within regulatory services, and pollution control annual registration and food lodging and pools within the health department.

In terms of historical context and process, this is an annual process.

The update to the license fee schedule is informed by appendix J of the municipal code and coincides with the budget process.

Staff conducts analysis and presents recommendations to be considered and voted on by council.

And before we get into the specific historical context, I want to first note that broadly speaking, there are two general varieties of recommended fee updates.

First, there can be base increases to all or most fees, or secondly, more isolated adjustments to specific fees.

The former, the base increases across the board, are typically intended to fully or partially maintain cost recovery in relation to increasing costs of administration in the city.

The latter, the more isolated adjustments to specific fees, are more targeted adjustments, which are typically driven by the goal of changing overall cost recovery of a specific operation.

So to get back to historical context, fees have received a base increase, again, meaning an across the board increase five times between 2010 and 2024.

Generally, that base increase has been one and a half to 2% across the board, with the exception of PCAR, where the annual increase has been higher.

In terms of the approach for 2025 last year, staff recommended and council approved a 5% base increase at that time, excluding PCAR, because the fee study at that time showed no room for increased collections.

There were a few council amendments, notably as it pertained to transportation network companies and PCAR.

That 5% increase was driven again by year-over-year increase in personnel expenses from 2024 to 2025 for the core divisions associated with administering or enforcing these fees.

So to that end, while that increase may have looked comparatively high in relates to increases from the prior 15 years, it was in fact being recommended with the intent to simply maintain cost recovery to prevent property taxes from shouldering the growth in personnel costs.

Again, we are presenting in the context of the annual update process, but we wanted to flag that outside of the more exhaustive annual review and recommendations, the license fee schedule is in fact updated throughout the year.

On this slide, we consolidated updates to the schedule which have come through council since last fall's adoption of the 2025 schedule.

So these new or modified fees are built into the 2026 schedule and absent any recommended changes or amendments will roll for roll forward as previously approved.

And a few slides back, I defined those two general types of updates the broad base ones or the more isolated ones.

The 2026 recommended fee schedule holds most fees flat, meaning no base increase.

But as we will get into later in the presentation, there are more isolated department-driven recommended adjustments that are being brought forward.

And having no recommended base increase does differ from the past few years, but the primary reason for holding off is the 2024 legislative directive requiring that comprehensive enterprise-wide fee study for Schedule J, meaning the license fee schedule.

And our goal there is to bring on board a vendor who can evaluate our existing fees, fee structures, fee levels, and make recommendations that may simplify the fee schedule or streamline our administration or enhance our cost recovery.

And when the vendor's analysis is complete, their recommendations will be considered heavily as the license fee schedule is next revisited.

That's a we felt pushing forward with any broad recommendations at this time, would have potentially required a lot of duplicative city staff time, analyzing fees now and then again later with the vendor, and it is very time-consuming work.

And furthermore, waiting for the completion of their work should minimize potentially unnecessary fee changes, and that should simplify things both for administration and for individuals or entities who pay the fees.

So that being said, the only proposed 2026 adjustments were operating department-driven, either needed cleanup or things they've been working on, for which they'll be explaining here shortly.

And with that, I will turn it over to OSA.

Chair Osman, Council members.

As my colleague said, my name is Osana Gbata Tanyu.

I am a budget and evaluation analyst, and I'll be continuing on with the license fee schedule recommendation.

So before we get into the fee change recommendations that have a fiscal impact, we would like to note corrections that were made to the schedule.

Six licenses have been added back to the license fee schedule that inadvertently fell off in recent years.

The corrections are to reinstate these licenses to the fee schedule and are as follows: corporate stock charges, new corporate shareholder, pawn broker, pawn broker investigation fee, taxi vehicle insurance fee, and large venue food facility per food vendor.

We're just reiterating on this slide the main license stakeholders.

This time the divisions with boxes around them are the ones that made changes to the license fee schedule this year.

Minneapolis Animal Care and Controls boxes in green, as the revisions here are pretty straightforward, and we will go into those on the next slide.

However, rental licensing and PCAR have a bit more intricate changes.

So to provide some additional context, we have department leaders to come and bring some additional expertise there.

So starting with Minneapolis Animal Care and Control, as mentioned earlier, these changes here are pretty straightforward and aim to enhance operational efficiency, address financial barriers, and eliminate fee duplicity.

Animal Minneapolis Animal Care and Control, also known as MAC, has three categories of revisions.

First, MAC is proposing the elimination of the first offense impound fee.

This helps pet owners, encourages reunification, and reduces shelter costs.

Second, MAC proposes eliminating the potentially dangerous and dangerous animal license fees.

Owners will instead purchase a standard pet license.

And third, MAC formally is adding the sterilization fee to the license fee schedule.

This is already being implemented and provides a valuable affordable service.

We will walk through this table for every division that comes up.

So I want to quickly walk through it with you all.

The column to the far left left with the title license name is just that.

It's the license name or the licenses that are being referred to.

The column to the right of that 2026 forecasts without fee schedule recommendation shows us the expected revenue for the applicable fee or fees, what it would have been if there were no proposed changes, essentially if they were left exactly as they are now in the 2025 license fee schedule.

The column to the right of that 2026 forecast, including fee schedule recommendation, shows us the expected revenue for the applicable fee or fees with the proposed changes, and the column to the right of that fiscal impact is the difference between those two other columns, the second and the third, which gives us the fiscal impact of these changes.

So for Minneapolis Animal Care and Control, we expect marginal to have no fiscal impact for those second and third items that were talked about in the prior slide.

So the dangerous license fees are really about simplifying and streamlining the fee schedule and getting rid of some redundancies.

Bless you.

The sterilization fee is already in effect, and at this $150 price, there is no change.

So formally adding it to the license fee schedule is not expected to yield any fiscal impacts.

What's driving the 50K reduction is the elimination of the first offense impound fee.

This calculation was generated by reviewing historical application of this fee at the $55 rate.

Moving on to rental licensing.

Rental licensing recommends a 10% increase for all tier one, tier 2, tier 3 rental license fees, covering both long-term and short-term rentals.

This adjustment aims to increase cost recovery from 58% to 64% and brings our fee closer to the metro area standards.

While the ultimate goal is 90 to 95% cost recovery, this 6% improvement is a practical and significant step toward that direction.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Council members, I'm April Bogard, Director of Inspection Services in Regulatory Services.

As OSA mentioned, we are currently collecting 58% of our estimated program costs for 2025.

That cost is estimated to be 7.7 million dollars, which means that the general fund is subsidizing 42% of our rental licensing program.

This slide, I know there's there's a lot of numbers on this slide.

The important things to note here are there is a different fee level for each tier, tiers one, two, and three.

There's a building fee, there is a fee per unit, and then there is a supplemental fee, which does not apply to tier one properties.

So we'll go over a specific example.

If you look at the columns in green, that sort of gives you the formula for how to calculate a rental license fee.

So for a tier one single-family home, the building fee and under this proposed 10% increase would be $98.

The per unit fee would be $41, there's one unit because it's a single family home, and there is no supplemental fee because it is a tier one property.

So the total fee for the year would be $139 or an increase of $1.08 per month.

A slightly larger building, a tier one 10-unit building, has a building fee of $167.

There is a $12 per unit fee, and again, no supplemental fee for a tier one.

So the total would be $287 a year or an increase of $21 cents per month per unit.

As OSA mentioned, this 10% increase is a critical first step toward decreasing our reliance on the property tax levy, and we estimate that this increase would bring us closer to 64% recovery rate.

Just to note, if we made one single jump to get to 90 to 95% cost recovery, we would need to increase rental fees by $154%.

Thank you.

Thank you for that additional context.

So with all those factors in mind, the anticipated fiscal impact for this change is an increase of roughly 446,000.

Next, we're going to discuss the health department's pollution control and annual registration.

The health department is proposing to increase certain equipment fees by 13%.

This applies to equipment that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, such as those that use or store combustible fuels.

The health department is also right sizing the fee for CO2E emissions from facilities with state air permits that report their fuel usage.

I will pass it off to Jenny Lansing to expound further on PCAR.

Thank you, Chair Osman and Council members.

I'm Jenny Lansing, Senior Environmental Project Manager in the Health Department.

And I'm going to share with you the three major fee methodology considerations that have come out of the past three years of work and a contracted fee study with a consultant and determining the carbon dioxide equivalent fee.

These are the points that brought us to our final fee determination.

First, we evaluated our climate programming and determined that some of the existing green cost share work, specifically the large-scale greenhouse gas emissions RFP, is eligible to be supported by the PCAR fees.

Second, PCAR air emission fees are charged per ton of emissions.

The fee study only focused on emissions from liquid fuel.

The total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from all facilities from liquid fuel only was just under 2,000 tons in 2023.

We realized that to get to the necessary 95% cost recovery, we would have to charge over $600 per ton.

This was incredibly high and would have had an unequitable distribution of costs to certain facilities.

Third, because of its focus on emissions from liquid fuels, the fee study looked at switching equipment from liquid fuel to gaseous fuel, as was determined by the fee study to be the best pollution reduction option.

It was determined that some projects focusing only on liquid fuel were likely not logistically feasible.

For example, Abbott has 13 diesel-powered emergency generators, which are required by law to provide power in the event of loss of electricity.

A switch to natural gas is not an option as there is also the potential for disruption to the natural gas service line in an emergency.

Due to this and the fact that switching from liquid fuel to gaseous fuel is not carbon neutral and only results in an overall reduction of 28% greenhouse gas emissions, we decided to expand the scope.

Thus, we expanded the scope to include additional permitted facilities and other fuel sources, not only liquid fuels.

This increased the carbon emissions tonnage to almost 1.5 million tons, and we could charge a much smaller dollar per ton fee with the potential for more greenhouse gas reduction projects across more facilities reducing more emissions.

This revenue will support our large-scale greenhouse gas reduction work to maintain the same level of programming as previous years.

Facilities that will be paying this new CO2E fee are eligible to receive up to 175,000 in innovative green cost share funding, or they could apply for up to $500,000 in grant funding for large-scale greenhouse gas emission reduction projects through the Green Cost Share Program.

There will be a cap on the annual fee of 175,000 per site, which is the maximum they are eligible to receive through the innovative green cost share funding.

With that, I will turn it back to finance.

Thank you, Jenny.

So getting into the fiscal impact for PCAR, we've broken it up into various categories.

So starting with energy, noise, and air pollution fees, we are expecting a 123,000 increase in revenue.

For commercial and industrial manufacturing equipment and processes fees, we are expecting a $1,000 increase in revenue.

For chemical storage fees, we are expecting a $38,000 increase in revenue.

And for the CO2E emission fees, we are expecting a $1,048,000 increase in revenue.

This totals to $1,210,000, which you will see on the following slide.

On here, we provide a high-level snapshot by division of the expected fiscal impact of these proposed changes.

On the far left, the only modification from the other table is we've specified the division.

So starting with Minneapolis Animal Care and Control, expected fiscal impact of $50,000 reduction in revenue, rental licensing, there's an expected increase of roughly $446,000 in revenue.

And then for pollution control and annual registration, there's an expected fiscal impact of an additional 1.2 million dollars in revenue.

I will now pass the mic back to my colleague Ben Zimmerman to provide an update on the comprehensive fee study.

Okay, thank you, OSA.

On this slide, we simply have the language from the legislative directive late last year requiring the aforementioned fee study.

In terms of an update, we have a timeline here of progress made during the current year.

In Q1, the first round of the RFP was published.

Unfortunately, no responses were received.

Finance did additional targeted outreach to drum up interest.

In Q2, the second round of the RFP was published, and we did receive a handful of responses.

And Q3, finance has been working with city leadership and CIO to finalize the scope and terms.

And I found out just this morning that the contract actually has been signed, which is very exciting.

And the goal then is for work on the fee study to begin in the coming months.

And with that, we are done and we stand for questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much for that presentation.

We will have a question after the public hearing.

So I'll put the public here and hear from the public and we'll come up in the questions.

All right.

I am going to proceed to open the public hearing and recognize Charlie Rowder.

Charlie.

All right.

Next person is Jason Pep.

Yes.

Welcome.

Jason Pop, thank you very much, Chairman Osman.

All right, couple things that I would like.

I'm specifically talking to you today as a rental property owner, not a multiple multiple rental property owners as a rental property owner.

I would like to put a face on what a property owner is.

Me and my wife own a duplex.

My wife works a straight job.

I work a commission job.

That is my pension.

That is my pension.

That is my 401k.

That is my future.

And this is for everybody.

This is for anybody who buys a rental property.

I'm going to keep this under two minutes.

What I heard is you're doing a 10% increase as a significant first expense step for a hundred and fifty-four percent deficit.

You got to do what you gotta do.

Inflation is happening, inflation's everybody.

Nobody's disagreeing that you got to rent increase your rental license.

But I'd like to look at the face of what a rental property owner is and understand when you're making other legislation regarding rental property, how you could destroy the rental market ownership of properties.

I have one tenant who's been with me 17 years.

I've got another tenant who's been with me 12 years.

Their rent is significantly under market value.

The reason why their rent is significantly under value is we get along, it works, everything's going good.

Guess what?

You make laws that say you can't increase your rent.

It looks like you're increasing 10% for a per as a practical significant step because of inflation.

What if your rents are low and you put in rent control?

How do we do that?

How do we make that practical significant step?

So this isn't a disagreement about increasing the rental license fee whatsoever.

You got to do what you gotta do.

But I had an $8,000 dig on the rental property last year for maintenance.

The router person got the chain stuck, got the chain stuck.

That ended up to be an $8,000 dig.

Five, 10 years ago, I bet you I could have got that done for $3,000.

Rents go up, fees go up, everything goes up, and if you stop that, you're gonna end up with situations where people just aren't going to invest in Minneapolis.

I asked somebody around the office about some recent lives.

He said, I sold off on Minneapolis, I'm done with Minneapolis.

That happened right after St.

Paul.

Careful what you careful for unintended consequences.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, sir, for your testimony.

Uh next person is Cecil Smith.

Hi, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Cecil Smith.

I'm president and CEO of the Minnesota Multi Housing Association, and I reside in World 1.

I'm here yet again to voice our opposition to 10% increases in the rental licensing fee.

Not much has changed since last year.

The Minneapolis rental market is facing serious challenges.

We still have escalating costs above general inflation in all aspects of operations, including rising property taxes.

But in the past year, rent growth has been minimal and below inflation, well below the double digit increase before us today.

This is an unsustainable business model.

The impetus for these license fees seem to be attributable to the desire to increase the cost recovery through the fee.

Four and a half million dollars is collected through the fee each year, but we're told there are 7.7 million dollars of expenses for the existing rental license fee program.

Given that more than 90% of licensed properties are inspected only every eight or more years and have no other violation history, that inspection and the eight fee collections costs about two and a half thousand dollars per license.

The 20-minute inspection was completed without any significant issues, but over the last nine years I pay $1,200 in fees.

I will also note that I pay 25% higher property taxes having a rental property, which contributes to the general fund.

I'm perplexed by these numbers.

I hope the council has also has questions.

I think a detailed accounting of the $7.7 million would be helpful.

Please deliberate carefully on the structure of the funding for rental licensing and moderate the increase on Tier 1 properties.

Thank you so much.

Next person is Alison Metzer.

Welcome.

Councilman Osbin.

The rest of you, thank you for taking time to listen.

Um, like Charlie, I am a single owner.

Um I bought my parents' duplex about 10 years ago.

They've owned that property since the 70s, so it's stayed in our family.

Um we've never had an issue whenever the um inspectors have come by, and yet every year the the fees go up and the fees go up.

And I understand we've got to cover costs, but I'm telling you right now, those fees are going to go, the rent's going up.

It's got to.

We've got to recover some of our stuff.

It's becoming more and more burdensome to own rental property in the city of Minneapolis.

I really don't want to let the family property go, but it's just becoming burdensome.

So I wanted to just let you guys know uh feelings of a single person.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next person, Lee Samelson.

Hey.

Chair Osman, members of the committee.

I saw that PCAR was uh part of this item, and I understand that the mayor's administration decided this year to uh conduct a study on strategies to reduce carbon emissions starting in 2026.

Uh a study they've wanted to do since 2022.

And while I'm unclear if we have implemented the carbon reduction plan for 2025 that was presented a year ago, I think this item that we just heard now looks like a good step forward.

And so for everyone here under state statute, the city can only change fees that recoup the city's spending on the pollution reduction program, so the city has to justify exactly how the fee level reflects the city's expenses for the program, and doesn't generate any additional revenue beyond the cost of the program, as I understand.

And uh last year when the administration laid out a plan to reduce emissions from 36 polluters by about 6%, they estimated that the program would cost about 453,000.

That broke down to 452 dollars per ton of carbon emissions, but uh changing that to only conducting a study this year makes that work cost much less, which they can only justify charging 44 dollars a ton.

And I'm hoping that this item here breaks that impasse so that the fee could be used to implement the carbon reductions and uh not just the cost of the study.

And I am connected with a lot of constituents who would uh like to implement a larger a larger polluters pay program to reduce carbon emissions, but we don't have the legal basis to do so until the administration begins to implement carbon reductions at the larger level.

I'm hoping that's what this will that uh this is what it's about.

The we saw the council voted unanimously to implement the $44 fee uh per ton at the July 1st deadline, and this is no time for us to be behind on our own timeline.

We need a full carbon emissions reduction program in 2026 that'll actually reduce emissions and use the fees to cover those costs so that taxpayers are not footing the bill.

Uh thank you.

Thank you so much.

And the next person is Junta M.

Or junta.

Are there anyone who would like to speak on this item?

Or this public hearing.

All right.

See none uh close the public hearing and open for uh discussion and questions.

I see councilmember Rainbow first.

I'll recognize him.

Thank you.

So I I do have a question about uh the rental fees for the properties.

Uh maybe one of the staff could answer.

It seems like uh there hasn't been increases, and that's why uh we're so far behind on that cost recovery.

Is that is that what happened?

Yeah, we haven't read it.

Chair Osman, Councilmember Member Rainville.

Um, we outline the context for those historical updates dating back to 2010.

I can speak to the years I've been here.

There have been updates, I believe the past two years of two percent two years ago and then five percent last year, uh and then the proposed ten percent this year.

Um, but in years where you have no increases or where expenses grow faster and revenues are held flat, like these things move and evolve over time, which is why we from time to time study them and make recommendations to better align or move recovery in a certain direction.

Sure.

And so are are you pretty confident about the uh seven point seven million dollars of cost to I believe that's a figure?

We're only recovering sixty-five percent of that.

Uh sure Osman, Councilmember Rainville.

I as um part of a legislative directive earlier this year um on looking at the cost of doing annual inspections.

We did a fairly comprehensive fee study, and we we do feel confident about the 7.7 number.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Alright, uh yes, I do have a question.

Just to follow up.

Could you tell me the the I I'm looking at here uh Tier 1?

Let's use the exam of Tier 1.

The license fee is 165, 67 a year plus how many units?

Twelve dollars.

Am I getting right?

That's 3X.

Or Chair Osman, can you ask that question?

Sorry.

Tier one license fee, $98 a year.

Plus the um per unit fee.

So a tier one single-family home would be one unit, so it would be ninety-eight dollars plus forty-one for a total of um 139.

For yearly.

Per year.

Okay.

So an increase, it's an increase of thirteen dollars.

That 10% is an increase at $13.

Understandable.

Thank you.

Um, before I get into other things, I do have a question about why are we not collecting $3.2 million dollars on the rental license?

You say we are subsidizing, and we're not collecting.

And we continue to issue a license for because uh that's our cost recovery rate.

So our cost recovery rate right now is uh at 54%, so that that $3 million dollars, I don't have the slide in front of me, is what the general fund is helping to support.

Okay.

Are we collecting most of the we are collecting also?

Can I have this slide?

One more.

Uh so we're we're collecting 4.5 million dollars.

The general fund is supporting the rest of the 7.7.

So the general fund is supporting $3.2 million.

We're collecting 4.5 million.

Okay.

I guess my question, I don't want to make it too complicated.

All the license that we continue to issue.

Are we collecting all those fees?

We are okay.

We are collecting all those fees.

Okay.

Umber Cashman.

Uh thank you, Chair Osman.

When you did this fee study to understand the 7.7 million that goes into the city's rental licensing, did you publish that anywhere on limbs that we could read the breakdown of those services that the city provides?

Chair Osman, uh Councilmember Cashman.

I don't think we published all of our um homework for that.

Is there any any kind of like summary document or kind of breakdown that's uh nothing that we have publicly available, but we we do have that data.

I'd be happy to get back to you with that.

Okay, thank you.

Um yeah, I guess I'm just concerned that um that the fees are so high, like 7.7 is so high on the city side, but I'm also concerned that we're not recovering uh so much of it.

And uh, but I do understand that we don't want to go, you know, astronomically high with the rental fees and and price people out of you know being able to be mom pop um landlords.

So I guess we're in this situation with like the best that we can do for right now.

So I will move this for approval.

All right.

Um seeing no one else.

I will uh with that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

And those opposition, no?

No.

All right.

Well, that motion moves, so thank you so much.

All right, I'm trying to see where we are here.

Here we go.

Uh next we have a resolution for discussion related to that amend to the city comprehensive plan amending to minimum height flexibility.

I'll well, I'll welcome city planner May Ling Smith uh for pre-presentation.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Osman.

And okay.

Great.

Sorry, please go ahead.

Okay, thank you, Chair Osman.

Um, so my name is Mailing Smith.

I am with the uh with CPED planning division in the community planning department.

Um, and today I will be I will be discussing a comprehensive plan amendment um that relates to minimum height in our built form districts.

Um in 2020, Minneapolis 2040, the comprehensive plan established 14 built form districts, and these guide the scale of development for every single parcel in the city, and it includes um regulations that discuss how um minimum and maximum height would work in those districts.

Um this policy was codified into built form overlay districts the following year in 2021.

Um the result of these regulations is that some districts have a minimum height requirement of between two and 10 stories.

Um, and this primarily affects downtown, but it does affect uh areas outside of downtown as well, usually where there's um like uh transit and major transit investments and other key development sites that I've that have been identified.

Um in general, this has been a very successful policy.

Um having minimum and maximum heights has created predictability throughout the development review process.

Um this has helped to discourage underdevelopment along key corridors, for instance, um in corridor six, we've been able to prevent one-story buildings from being constructed.

It's also a useful tool for communicating what our expectations are for development intensity with developers instead of saying FAR or dilent units per acre, this is also helpful for communicating with the public.

Um this is what the built forum map looks like today.

So the districts that are mostly blue or the dark red, those are the ones that have a minimum height requirement of at least two stories and more.

So one thing that we've noticed is that the transit districts which tend to have higher minimum height requirements are causing the most problems with implementation compared to core six corridor six, which has the two-story minimum or core 50, which is found downtown.

One example is that in Transit 30 and Core 50, there's a 10-story minimum, and there have been a handful of affordable housing projects that have wanted to locate in Transit 30, but they've been unable to do so because it simply doesn't pencil out a 10-story affordable housing project is not a feasible project, because this requires a much more expensive building construction type than anything that's below seven stories or seven stories or fewer.

So transit 30 is kind of the area where we are seeing a lot of uh of the issues, and we've been trying to analyze that.

There are also a handful of just specific uses that have a hard time meeting this height.

One example is production uses, um, they tend to be shorter in scale, and if a property owner wants to build a small addition or a new structure on their production industrial oriented site, they will have issues sometimes.

Another example is principal uses without a principal structure, like a parking lot or a park or utility uses.

These are subject to minimum height currently, and they would need to pursue a variance in order to avoid one, avoid uh having the minimum height requirement.

And then kind of a final observation is that they could they could come forward for a variance application.

Um the findings that are required for variances are quite hard to meet, and that's intentional.

Um they have to meet the finding that challenges exist in complying with the ordinance, and it has to be something that's unique about the property.

And a lot of times, this is not really something that we're able to wordsmith our way out of.

So just because of this lack of flexibility, that's what is prompting this type of ordinance to come through at this time.

Um, and so we've been exploring ways to add some flexibility into the comp plan as well as the zoning amendment.

What you're looking at today is just going to be the comprehensive plan amendment aspect of it after if and when the city council decides to move forward with that, it would go to Mount Council, and then the zoning code amendments would follow after that.

But what we've been looking at, which we started out the process by trying to set to say, are there areas where we could insert a new mechanism or use existing administrative processes to lower minimum height requirements, and kind of the result of exploring those options were that we we don't really want to pick a lot of winners and losers.

We don't want to have a lot of staff discretion, or and we don't want to get back to the days of where we're doing a conditional use permit for height for every single height request that comes through.

So we decided it's probably best to just have fewer exceptions.

There may be some exceptions that are proposed as part of the zoning code amendment that you can find in the LIMS file, but we try to address this issue by offering flexibility across the board and then a few exceptions based on the use.

Um this uh was supported by the city attorney's office um as as an approach to um uh remedying some of these issues.

Um we do want to ensure that minimum FAR stays the way it is right now, um so that wouldn't be changing.

Um maximum height also wouldn't change, and we are considering all of these factors as we're moving into the next phase of updating the comprehensive plan.

So the summary of what we're proposing um is that the mo the most changes you would see would be transit 15, 20, and 30.

So transit 15 we would lower the minimum height from four to three stories for transit 20, the minimum height would lower from six to four stories, and then the biggest distinction would be in transit 30.

So right now the minimum is 10, and we do propose keeping that as 10 in the areas uh within downtown and closest to downtown.

Outside of those areas, uh, we would propose lowering that to five.

So that is the staff recommendation is a five-story minimum.

The planning commission did um adjust this to a six-story minimum.

So um that's something that we would ask you to discuss today.

Um and there would be no changes proposed to the uh comprehensive plan map itself because we would be addressing this change and this distinction for transit 30 um just through words, but once if and when this does get to the point of being amended through the zoning code, we would be proposing two districts to replace the one transit 30 district.

So it'd be a transit 30A and transit 30 B district.

Um the way that this plays out would be in the f the map that you see in front of you.

So the the areas within that box would have the 10-story minimum still, and then outside of the box, um anything outside of downtown and those areas closest to downtown would be subject to the five or six story minimum, depending on what you decide today.

And that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um I do I do have a question on the I think first of all, it does make sense.

Uh perfectly makes sense, you know.

Uh the cost of construction, everything is holding back some of the great project that we're looking for, especially affordable housing.

And my district, uh, I think it does make sense to, especially the project that CS celebrates to you know not hold up because of the height requirement.

Um could you just highlight about uh the change is not just uh uh transit 30, but also the the other transits uh you say we lowered from three uh four to three.

Does still four requires, let's say if somebody wants built four, do they still have an option to do it?

Thank you for your question, Chair Osman.

The yes, so maximum height is not changing.

Okay, so they can still um reach that intensity um that development intensity, just like they would be able to today, but we're just trying to add in a little bit of flexibility of flexibility on the lower end.

And one more time if you can explain the transit 30 staff recommendation and the planning planning uh staff recommended planning committee recommendations.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I'm sorry, this slide is actually very confusing.

So the staff recommendation was five stories, and then planning commission uh recommended increasing it from five stories to six stories for that transit 30A district.

So we just were kind of of the mindset that we wanted to see more flexibility um citywide, and the planning commission's discussion um included talk of well, six stories is kind of uh a threshold that you see in construction practices, and that's why they were going for six stories.

Um so you know, we we're just trying to lower the barriers wherever we can.

That's that's where we came up with five.

Um great, thank you so much.

Yeah, and I'm sure Councilmember Charlie will be talking about she's uh she's the member of the planning commission.

Uh but first I'll recognize Councilmember Rainville.

Thank you.

So I'm assuming the planning commission wanted to increase the six because of the concrete base with five wood.

Yeah.

Well, um, Chair Chair Osman and Councilmember Rainville, you could go up to seven stories with traditional stick frame construction using today's practices.

Six is kind of the six stories is the number that you hear the most of, but technically you could go up to seven stories.

Anything above seven, you do have to use um a more expensive construction type like steel or concrete.

Sure, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Chowder.

Yeah.

Thank you so much, Chair Osman.

Um just kind of I'm trying to refresh my memory from Planning Commission.

Um the reason why we had supported the amendment to change from five to six stories in transit 30A was one guess.

Like there's typical practice of six-story buildings.

There's discussion around six stories, is about the highest that you get to where you can still have eye level to the street and that connectivity.

Um there was also a discussion that occurred at the planning commission, committee of the whole, where big discussion about the transit 30 issue and the inflexibility of it.

But uh planning commission members shared in planning commission that there wasn't an issue with uh transit 20 and transit 15 and transit 20 is currently slated at six stories, and so through that discussion, um we made the change to still allow for the flexibility from transit 30A, which is at 10 um to six instead of five.

So we're at that six-story level.

Also, for me personally, I'll say that like that added density.

I know it's a story, but I think it makes a difference, and then it um I think it just scales three, four, six, ten.

So that was kind of the discussion that we had there.

I still think it provides a flexibility.

I'd be curious to know if staff has any data that suggests that this one floor difference makes it trickier, uh, but I thought the conversation that we had in planning commission made some good points for why the six-story limit is kind of the standard, especially in um European cities with higher density and just trying to build out neighborhoods that are dense that people can live, work, and play in.

Thank you.

Councilmember Chowder, would you like to make the motion for?

Yeah, I would like to make a the motion to approve um the amendment with the addition to the planning commission.

So what's proposed to us from the planning commission?

Okay.

Yes, with uh with that, um, Councilmember Chowdhury motion to approve the planning commission recommendation.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Thank you so much, Steph, for your work.

I know it's been a long time coming, but thank you so much.

All right.

Uh our last item is receive and file presentation related to Minneapolis Kaiway system.

This is the response to the legislative direct authored by Councilmember Cashman.

I'll welcome City Planner Shana and Manager Team Drew for more information, but I don't see the I see Brother Jelly.

Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair Osmond and Committee members.

My name is Brett Shelley.

I'm the deputy city operations officer for development health and livability.

I'm here today to introduce the response to a legislative directive relating to skyways.

Um I'm gonna start this presentation on behalf of a multi-departmental team that Skyways touch um different areas within the city enterprise representatives from community planning and economic development, public works, and the downtown council downtown improvement district will introduce themselves as we work through the presentation.

I'd also like to give a special thanks to Jessica Stone who managed uh this team through the response process.

On June 18th of 2025, the city council approved a legislative directive relating to skyway establishment oversight and code enforcement.

The deadline for this response was September 4th.

And so when we meet those deadlines, I'd like to point that out.

Um at a high level, the legislative directive asks for a report back on the city's governance role for establishing new skyways and evaluating operations of existing skyways, how the city monitors and enforces code compliance and hours of operation, opportunities for stronger collaboration to improve the user experience, and finally the directive asked for information about property owner contributions to the DID and whether or not residential properties within the district participate in those assessments.

I'll also note um uh file from a letter from the building owners and managers association or BOMA was received by city staff and has been attached to the LIMS file.

And with that, I will turn it over to Shanna.

Good afternoon, Chair Osman, Council members.

My name is Shanna Sether.

I'm a principal city planner in community planning and economic development.

So I'm going to be going over items number one and portions of item number two, and then I'll be turning it over to my other colleagues.

So under the first item on the legislative directive is to provide an overview of the city of Minneapolis's role in governance of skyway networks, including the process and approvals required for the establishment of new skyways and evaluating the operations of existing skyways.

So it's really kind of a tail between two periods of time.

So prior to October 1, 2016, the only regulatory review for Skyways was an encroachment permit for the portions of a skyway that exist over the public right-of-way.

At that time, starting in 1980, we had the downtown Skyway Advisory Board, and they would review all new skyways for design, hours of operation, signage, but it really wasn't a city function.

It was a city board that existed until it dissolved in 2017.

And that essentially kind of co-that aligns with the zoning code text amendment that occurred and became effective on October 1st, 2016.

And with that, we introduce a new process.

So now we have an administrative review for new skyways.

So those applications go to my colleagues in CPED and zoning administration, and they evaluate new skyways for design, operational standards, and then upon approval, then it goes into the second phase, the permitting phase, which is the encroachment permit.

Here's an overview of the standards that are found in the Minneapolis Zoning Code.

And we kind of split those out to all skyways.

So we have regulations that include bird safe glazing, for example.

That would be true for all skyways, and that was really the impetus for the zoning code text amendment in 2016 is ensuring that our skyways were safe.

There was a lot of really great research that was conducted in the staff report from the previous application for the um for the zoning code text amendment is attached to today's LIMS file.

Then we also have Skyway standards that are specific to downtown, and that's really looking at one of the most important things that kind of stands out are the hours of operation.

But it's really important to note that only skyways that were approved through this administrative process.

So skyways that were proposed and constructed after October 1, 2016 are subject to these regulations.

So the staff member and and the opinion of the city attorneys at the time were existing skyways, for which there were many, were existing and non-conforming.

So these are the five skyways that were approved since the ordinance adoption downtown.

There was one additional that is located outside outside of downtown.

So unlike cities that are publicly that have publicly owned skyway systems, Minneapolis Skyways are privately owned and funded.

And so our authority to regulate design and operational standards really came into play with the ordinance adoption effective October 1 of 2016.

So since the adoption of the ordinance, there were six that received administrative approval and five of which downtown.

And so the enforcement mechanism, so this is under the second item, which is the process and tools for which the city monitors and enforces code compliance, including hours of operation mandated in the ordinance.

So code compliance and enforcement is primarily complaint driven.

So folks can contact Minneapolis 311.

If they believe that there are potential violations.

So following a complaint, a zoning inspector investigates, and if violations are confirmed, they'll work with the property owner to achieve compliance.

But I really have to stress that only the skyways that we see here, these five, would be subject to those mandated hours of operation.

And with that, I can turn it over to Tim Drew.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Osman.

Council members, my name is Tim Drew.

I'm the parking system manager for the city of Minneapolis.

The City of Minneapolis owns 10 Skyways, mainly surrounding parking ramps and city owned buildings, which equates to about 1.9 miles out of 9.5 miles of Skyway in Minneapolis.

For the hours of operation, city owned skyways generally follow zoning code requirements as it relates to hours of operation.

City owned skyways are open around the ABC parking ramps from 5 a.m.

to midnight daily, so that's beyond other requirements.

Others are opened and closed based on the needs of nearby venues.

We don't like to close skyways or keep skyways open and then go two skyways over and have to walk all the way back because that one's closed.

So we'll close our skyways strategically so people don't get stuck in the skyway system and have to backtrack.

So observationally is there fluctuation of uses due to the variety of events that occur downtown, including twins, wolves, lynx, uh events at the convention center, theater events, restaurants, and things of that nature.

Calls for service, maintenance requests may come from three eleven or three one one complaints resulting in violation orders written.

Routine maintenance done by Skyway owners.

We do not have a record of complaints because we usually stay ahead of any complaints that would happen by generally repairing items before they become an issue for the public.

City owned skyways between the ABC ramps are maintained and improved by the city and are paid for by MINDAT or the state.

Other city owned skyways are supported through the parking fund and may be shared with the budding property owners as necessary.

Privately owned skyway services are provided by the Skyway owner, they may in turn distribute the cost to other abutting property owners.

With that, I'll turn it over to Ben Chardlow.

Thank you, Tim.

Uh good afternoon, Mr.

Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Ben Shardlow, and I am the chief of staff with the Minneapolis Downtown Council and Downtown Improvement District.

And I'm going to speak to uh service charges to the downtown improvement district and then some active work that we're doing, convening stakeholders to make progress to improve the performance of the Skyway system.

I infer that the question that was uh included in the legislative directive is there, thinking kind of this the skyway district overlaps with where the DID is.

And uh commercial property owners pay into the DID.

Does that cover management of the Skyway system?

And I think the short and sweet answer to that is that it does not.

We have uh a model in which the um the programs that we do are uh there's an approval process for the budget um that runs through commercial property owners, and most of those services are provided in the public right-of-way.

So um a very high percentage of the work that we do is out in on the sidewalks in downtown Minneapolis, including the work that we do for cleaning, safety, greening, activation, vibrancy, all of those things.

So we do um collect service charges from buildings in the DID that are served by the Skyway system, um, and those service charges in 2025 added up to 8.7 million, but those resources go towards um again uh predominantly serving needs in the public realm uh out on the street.

Um and there's a there was a question in the legislative directive around do residential properties pay into the DID, and currently they do not.

Um so that is uh simple answer to that question.

Um with that said, this is a topic of uh very high interest for us.

We believe that it's a priority for uh improving access in the downtown core.

Um I have personally experienced the system the uh the phenomenon of trying to get where you're going in the Skyway system and getting blocked.

Uh memorably went to a wolves game, left coats in my office, couldn't get back there.

My kid and I were walking around downtown in t-shirts.

It's it happens, it's annoying, it's it's part of the part of our ongoing uh recovery from the challenges of 2020.

And as recognition of that, um the fact that we have this um very unique system of 9.5 miles of walkways, and and for it to work, we need hundreds of property owners to be collaborating actively for it to serve its intended function.

Um we put uh the Skyways in our in our own tenure plan, the 2035 plan uh as a priority initiative for having things work in a more hassle-free way downtown.

So from our vantage point, uh, we see over the next 10 years it has an extremely high priority to work with our partners at BOMA and uh property owners downtown and users to get the system to work much better than it is now to have better wayfinding and to have it perform better and be more a more predictable um transportation uh platform within downtown.

And as such, um we're in the process of convening a Skyway subcommittee right now that would operate under one of our committees.

Um there is so much need, um, and there is so much progress that we need to make that we're starting with dialogue.

We're starting with uh talking about how things are working, priorities, how things could be better, um our involvement in this in recent years has really been around kind of really um really acute issues where there's a really central building that isn't open and it's leading to issues with the network more broadly.

You can see this as a pretty um what's the term, there's not a lot of redundancy in the skyway system.

So if you're if you're trying to get somewhere um one building being closed because nothing in that building is open can lead to a blockage going to uh an entire area of the network.

Um, so again, um we're excited for that work to um to continue and take on, and we really do think that there's a lot of there's a lot that we need to engage on to get um get the outcomes that we want to see from our skyway system.

Um so I think those are my key points.

I I should note um if you have been downtown in the Skyways and you've seen DID ambassadors, that's um a small pilot program that we started in 2021 coming out of the pandemic, where we've only ever had ambassador service out on the streets, but in winter months, if most of the people or a lot of the people are inside in the skyways, and we have a skyway system that is difficult uh to navigate, um, and our ambassadors are there to help people get where they're going, it made sense for us to try having a team of ambassadors working in the Skyway, which we've had since then.

Um but it is a team of two ambassadors operating in a system of 9.5 miles, so it's not a whole lot of coverage for the need in the in the network.

Um again, I think just signaling um as downtown's business and civic organization, we're gonna be convening a group to look at this topic too because we agree with the city that this is really important, and we're coordinating with city staff on that work.

Um, and again, it feels like it's this uh it's it's an odd or d um to manage just because it takes so much coordination.

Um but we know that part of the answer to that is relationships and coordination and rebuilding a system in which people can get predictably where they want to go in the Skyway system, and we've we support that wholeheartedly.

I think that's what I have.

Thanks.

Thank you so much.

Uh, just a reminder for members that we'll be uh harsh thought at 415.

Uh yes, sir, go ahead.

Chair Osman, uh just that was the last slide.

I really want to thank Mr.

Shardlow um for being here.

Um I'm a member of the Hassel Free Systems subcommittee.

So this is something, you know, I'm also a downtown resident and uh especially in the winter a user of of the Skyways.

So something that I'm um very interested in following along.

So the staff team is here to answer any questions that the committee has.

Right.

Um thank you so much.

Um, I do rate.

We don't we don't have a public hearing schedule at this time, but uh we can consider a writing if you can share that with us uh through the clerk.

Uh can I say publicly now that I'd be able to I am a basic idea, but yeah, we'll talk about it.

Um we'll have a conversation with you.

I would navigate what we hear what might be the other people probably the argument for now uh people I'll work for you, or why we uh thank you.

Um, uh, we're gonna finish the meeting at this time and then we'll have a conversation right after the meeting.

That's okay.

Well, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um are there any questions from the members?

Yes, uh councilmember cash.

Thank you so much, Chair Osman, and thank you everyone who who worked on this uh legislative directive.

I author this because we are a growing downtown.

We have 68,000 residents and and growing, and the Skyway network is an incredible asset that I don't think any other city has what we have.

So it's really important for us to be able to maximize and optimize that uh to attract more people to live downtown and to work downtown and play downtown, all the things that that benefit all of us, and it's been a bit of a roadblock these past few years.

I get a lot of complaints.

So when you say we don't maybe don't get as many 311 complaints, perhaps they're all coming to my office about Skyway hours and getting blocked, getting lost uh from tourists, from residents, from workers.

And so the the point of this legislative directive was to understand our baseline.

I am interested in pursuing solutions here together, whether that's legislation or uh incentives or um assignage uh wayfinding um programs, changes to the zoning code, etc.

And I do have some follow-up questions, but for the sake of time, I wonder if I could just read them uh out for the public record, and perhaps we could do a follow-up memo.

Um, since I think there's some that maybe won't be easy, just off the top.

So um the uh Skyway advisory board that was dissolved in 2017.

Maybe what were the some of the key decisions that came out of that board, what that were helpful, and why was it dissolved?

Um, understand DID is convening a subcommittee, so I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel and recreate a group that's already convening.

But curious who's chairing that that committee and how often you meet and what the goals are of that subcommittee.

Um what are the most common variants requests to this Skyway zoning ordinance that we receive?

Sounds like none.

Yeah, um, I saw in the zoning code it says a clearly defined public street entrance.

What does this mean and how is it enforced?

Uh exterior signage and interior signage standards.

Uh, could those signage standards be raised um to create more visibility to the entrances and exits?

And then it says skyways can only be used for pedestrian movement.

Are there any expanded purposes to improve vitality?

For example, rollerblading um or or other uses that could bring more activity and activation to the Skyway network so we could look into that together.

And then um, what are the most common complaints types of complaints that zoning inspectors receive and investigate about Skyways, any complaints about ours?

So and then finally, um, if maintenance is required in a private Skyway, how are the costs distributed to a budding property owners?

So that might be a question that that BOMA could help us answer if it's not within the city's purview.

So again, thank you so much for working on this, and I hope this is kind of the start of uh process to improve the Skyway experience through many different efforts, and I will again I will email these questions over to you for a staff member for f for follow-up to continue the conversation.

Thank you, Chair.

Great, thank you.

Uh, Councilman Braindale.

Uh thank you.

I I just have uh an observation from from my office.

Uh I've been in office four years now and uh cover a lot of downtown.

So I would say that 98% of the complaints I get about Skyway hours are from residents.

Which leads me to think that the residents are part of the solution to this problem.

So it's my understanding uh you just could nod, yes or no, that the downtown improvement district has been doing some outreach to the uh the condos.

And uh in their initial reaction to being part of the funding stream to keep these skyways open, is that good, bad, and different?

You're shaking your head, no.

Okay, well, I'd be very interested to see what their reactions are if they want to use the skyways, then perhaps they can have help be part of the solution.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you so much for your presentation and uh see no further discussion, and I'll I'll ask Clark to receive a file of that presentation.

And see no further business before us with no objection, I'll declare this meeting and adjourn.

Thank you.

So I should figure out what board she lives in.

What area do you live in?

Okay, I am a resident here in the BC one takes a um I I think I have nothing you'll buy online.

Okay, I mean I'd be in the writing online.

I am speaking in a recent here in the city of the um residence, so which is a license property facility for uh people who are visiting homelessness in labor