OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Minneapolis, Minnesota/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Minneapolis City Council Special Meeting on Encampment Litigation - September 8, 2025

City Council — Monday, September 8, 2025
BodyMinneapolis, Minnesota
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, September 8, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:11:17

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:15

Good morning.

0:15

My name is Elliot Payne.

0:17

I'm the president of Minneapolis City Council.

0:19

I'm going to call this uh special meeting for Monday, September eighth, and we'll ask if the clerk to call the role to provide the presence of a quorum.

0:29

Councilmember Rainville.

0:30

Present.

0:31

Councilmember Chavez.

0:32

Present.

0:32

Councilmember Vito.

0:34

Present.

0:34

Councilmember Ellison is absent.

0:36

Councilmember Koske.

0:37

Present.

0:38

Councilmember Wansley.

0:39

President.

0:39

Councilmember Jenkins.

0:41

Councilmember Palmasano.

0:43

Present.

0:43

Councilmember Chaldery.

0:45

Present.

0:45

Councilmember Cashman is absent.

0:47

Councilmember Osman is absent.

0:50

Vice President Shug Tot.

0:51

Present.

0:52

President Payne.

0:53

Present.

0:53

There are ten members present.

0:54

Let the record reflect we have a quorum.

0:57

There is one item before us today, as reflected in the mayor.

1:00

I'll call for the special meeting to meet for a closed session to discuss the litigation matter.

1:04

I will recognize that the Attorney Anderson to provide the legal basis for the requested closed session.

1:33

Under the open meeting law, Minnesota Statute Section Thirteen D.05 subdivision three B.

1:39

The council may upon a proper motion close the meeting for the purposes of attorney client communication as permitted by the attorney client privilege.

1:46

In considering the motion, the council should weigh the right of the public to know what its government is doing against the need of the city to preserve the confidentiality of its discussions with its attorneys.

2:20

Second.

2:21

All those in favor say aye.

2:23

Aye.

2:23

Opposed say nay.

2:25

That carries.

2:27

And we will now close the public portion of our meeting and convene in closed session.

2:31

For the viewing public, I will note that the broadcast of this meeting will continue, and the City Council will reconvene in public after we have concluded the closed session.

2:39

Thank you.

4:31

Okay.

4:47

Okay.

1:06:18

Mm.

2:17:59

One minute.

2:18:06

Sounds good.

2:18:07

You're ready to go whenever.

2:18:12

The time is now eleven fifty-six, and the city council has reconvened an open session following our closed session.

2:18:19

I'll ask the clerk to call the role to prove the present presence of a forum.

2:18:23

Councilmember Rainville.

2:18:25

Council Member Chavez.

2:18:43

Present.

2:19:31

Or difference in law enforcement presence, whether uh this motion or the the motion that will be coming up shortly, whether it's approved or not, what's the difference in in law enforcement presence with with either of those outcomes?

2:20:09

Welcome, Ms.

2:20:10

Anslin.

2:20:11

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

2:20:12

Um so I believe the question was what would be the difference in law enforcement presence if the council were to approve versus not approve at the site.

2:20:24

Um unfortunately, that is all situational, so I can't give a specific answer as to what the different presence would be.

2:20:37

It would depend on what decisions were made um following either um approval or denial of the motion uh as to what the next steps would be for the law enforcement going forward.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural█████████████████████████████████████████████57%
Homelessness████████████████████████████36%
Pending Litigation████5%
Land Use and Zoning█1%
Intergovernmental Relations█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Minneapolis City Council Special Meeting - September 8, 2025

The Minneapolis City Council held a special meeting to consider authorizing litigation against property owner Hamoodi Sabri for a public health nuisance related to an encampment at 267 16 Lake Street East and 2932 28th Avenue South. The meeting featured extensive debate on homelessness, shelter availability, and the city's approach to addressing unsheltered populations.

Discussion Items

  • Motion for Litigation: Councilmember Vita moved to authorize the city attorney's office to initiate litigation against Hamoodi Sabri and related parties to enforce city authorities regarding the property. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Palmasano.
  • City Attorney's Explanation: City Attorney Anderson and Assistant City Attorney Anslin explained the legal basis under state statutes for public health nuisance, noting that the city has an obligation to abate such nuisances. They clarified that the request originated from the city attorney's office based on legal research.
  • Opposition Arguments: Several councilmembers expressed opposition. Councilmember Chavez highlighted the lack of shelter beds (17 available) for the 60 people at the encampment and advocated for housing-first solutions like a navigation center. Councilmember Wansley criticized the move as disingenuous and emphasized proven housing models, referencing proposed cuts to emergency housing vouchers. Councilmember Chowdhury argued that the lawsuit is a band-aid solution that will merely displace people without solving homelessness. Vice President Shugtai stated that lawsuits do not provide humanity or dignity and called for housing and wraparound services. Councilmember Osman raised concerns about double standards in enforcing nuisances on city-owned versus private property.
  • Support Arguments: Councilmember Jenkins supported the motion, stressing the city's responsibility to address public health and safety crises. Councilmember Palmasano argued that the encampment poses a visible public health risk, especially to nearby school children, and disputed the need for shelter beds for all individuals. Councilmember Vita emphasized coordinated efforts with the county and the need for accountability.
  • Facts and Figures: Director Velasquez reported 17 shelter beds available based on county data. Discussions included that 30+ housing vouchers had been offered, but shelter availability is often insufficient, with an average of 3 beds by nightfall.

Key Outcomes

  • Vote on Litigation Motion: The motion to authorize litigation passed with 6 votes in favor and 4 against. Key supporters included Councilmembers Vita, Koske, Jenkins, Palmasano, and Osman; key opponents included Councilmembers Chavez, Chowdhury, Shugtai, and President Payne.
  • Authorization: The city attorney's office is now authorized to proceed with the lawsuit against the property owner.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning. My name is Elliot Payne. I'm the president of Minneapolis City Council. I'm going to call this uh special meeting for Monday, September eighth, and we'll ask if the clerk to call the role to provide the presence of a quorum. Councilmember Rainville. Present. Councilmember Chavez. Present. Councilmember Vito. Present. Councilmember Ellison is absent. Councilmember Koske. Present. Councilmember Wansley. President. Councilmember Jenkins. Councilmember Palmasano. Present. Councilmember Chaldery. Present. Councilmember Cashman is absent. Councilmember Osman is absent. Vice President Shug Tot. Present. President Payne. Present. There are ten members present. Let the record reflect we have a quorum. There is one item before us today, as reflected in the mayor. I'll call for the special meeting to meet for a closed session to discuss the litigation matter. I will recognize that the Attorney Anderson to provide the legal basis for the requested closed session. Under the open meeting law, Minnesota Statute Section Thirteen D.05 subdivision three B. The council may upon a proper motion close the meeting for the purposes of attorney client communication as permitted by the attorney client privilege. In considering the motion, the council should weigh the right of the public to know what its government is doing against the need of the city to preserve the confidentiality of its discussions with its attorneys. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. That carries. And we will now close the public portion of our meeting and convene in closed session. For the viewing public, I will note that the broadcast of this meeting will continue, and the City Council will reconvene in public after we have concluded the closed session. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Mm. One minute. Sounds good. You're ready to go whenever. The time is now eleven fifty-six, and the city council has reconvened an open session following our closed session. I'll ask the clerk to call the role to prove the present presence of a forum.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com