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.

Councilmember Rainville.

Council Member Chavez.

Present.

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?

Welcome, Ms.

Anslin.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

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.

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

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.

Thank you.

Councilmember Chavez.

Thank you, Council President Payne.

I have a question for the city attorney's office.

Can you clarify the process or who brought the idea of this lawsuit forward?

I'd just like to understand how this process usually works.

Well, this uh councilmember, this uh the the process that uh was gone through to get to putting forward uh the idea of moving forward with this lawsuit uh was done internally by uh the city attorney's office uh based on legal research and reviewing the applicable statutes and the remedies offered under the statutes.

So this is one of which is which to clarify this is a request from the city attorney's office, and there was not a request from the mayor's administration.

This was created by the city attorney's office, correct.

This this as an avenue for um for moving forward with this, and that's based directly on the state statute uh on public health nuisance.

I'd like to get clarification on that over an uh over a meeting because I had a meeting with city attorney Anderson where I asked this particular question, and this answer isn't from my understanding what I received.

So I'd like to get more understanding of how we got to this point.

Um, well, I I can say candidly, I reviewed the statute.

I noted that there is a legal recourse within the statute.

Um I brought it to the attention of uh others within our office, and we evaluated this as an option uh for moving forward with a remedy for the situation.

So um I I candidly can say that this was done based on the research of our office.

Thank you.

I again I like clarification, I guess, from other folks involved as well.

Um I'd like a question on do you know how much shelter availability there is right now?

At this instance, council member, I I can't say as as I stand here right now.

Um that is a fluid um uh number.

Um, and so at any given point in time that would change um not only on the day but on the hour.

Uh so I um have been in closed session and don't have that information today as I stand here.

And we have staff here who is present who does work on homelessness outreach.

So if staff can please come up here and answer that question, that would be very important.

Thank you.

And while staff is coming up, I see uh our city attorney and priority queue.

Um sure, council president, council members.

I mean, we in the city attorney's office work very, very closely with our clients, and there's a situation here that the normal enforcement uh tools uh were not working, and so when we had that sort of situation, we were again work closely with our clients and we determined that there was uh a legal solution that that we did research in and came with that solution.

Director uh Velasquez.

Good morning, Council President Payne, Councilmember Chavez.

So, in terms of shelter availability, Hennepin County maintains a dashboard, publicly facing dashboard that shows the number of shelter spaces that are available.

That data is available with basically a one-day delay, and according to this morning's information, there are which is based off of yesterday.

There are 17 shelter spaces available.

I believe nine are for those that are gendered as male, uh, five female and one uh one mixed.

I recognize that adds up to 16, not 17.

That's the data that the county has available presently.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

It would be great to have the information today, but I'd like the public to know that there are 60 people sleeping on the encampment right now.

So there is if we're going based on the data you just provided us, there isn't enough people, enough shelter beds uh to actually house the people or have enough space for people to move into a shelter space, and I want the public to understand that.

I very much understand the public safety concerns that are arising from folks that are experiencing unsheltered homelessness there.

They themselves are also experiencing public safety issues themselves, as along with the neighbors in the area.

It's not a good location because it's next to a school, but without a plan and without an actual plan to address unsheltered homelessness or a place for people to move into, moving people when there isn't enough shelter capacity is not the way to address unsheltered homelessness.

I'm not gonna be supporting the motion that is gonna be brought forward by colleagues uh to move forward with this lawsuit because I think instead of wasting time and energy into a lawsuit, we can instead move people into a navigation center, move people into a location that is more safe and secure, not only for the folks living at the encampment, but the neighbors in the area.

And I think that if we aren't actually going to address on shelter homelessness, we need to be a lot more serious than this lawsuit today.

Thank you.

Councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair Payne.

Um, as I said earlier, I'd like to make the motion that the Minneapolis City Council hereby authorizes the city attorney's office to initiate litigation on behalf of the city against Hamoodi Sabri and any other necessary related or responsible parties to enforce the city's authorities and the city's legal and equitable rights and remedies, including but not limited to monetary damages, injunction relief, and any other appropriate relief or order arising from or related to the property located at 267 16 Lake Street East and 2932 28th Avenue South.

Second uh Councilmember Vita has moved uh this motion and it's been properly seconded.

Uh I will recognize Councilmember Wandsley.

Thank you, President Payne.

Just a question for the city attorney in light of the motion being read.

Um, just wanting to get a sense of what um you mentioned the state statute.

If you can share for public record, what statutes are being considered um in this litigation matter?

So this uh litigation matter is considering uh state statutes, both under public health nuisance, traditional nuisance, as well as common law nuisance.

Um also uh there are violations of uh Minneapolis code of ordinances as well that correspond to the state um nuisance concerns.

Thank you.

And then this goes to city attorney Anderson.

I know uh just getting clear clarification about the procedural uh mechanics of this decision.

Uh, you I think Councilmember Chavez raised the question around if you know how did this request come about?

You mentioned the client um, essentially you're here, or the city attorney's office is here to serve the clients and you all then did your research and brought forward this request.

I just would like clarity on which, when you mention client, are you talking about city broadly, administrative departments?

Um essentially who submitted the request that authorize you to move forward and ultimately ask us for authorization.

Uh council president, council members.

So the enforcement authority under ordinance lies with the administration, and so that's who we work with, you know, to determine what the authorities are and uh whether those authorities are sufficient.

Uh again, here they were not.

We did legal research, and then we need to come to the council as the governing body to authorize suit.

Okay.

And just for clarity, is there or also public record?

Um, is this the only property that is considered a public nuisance under that state statute that the city is considering at the time.

Uh council member, council president, council member wandsley.

This is the only property that is considered to be a public health nuisance, and I'm not aware of anything with respect to the any other properties.

Okay.

Thank you for sharing that.

Um, I shared this with colleagues.

I really look forward to working with you all to really think through how a statute like this could be leveraged to address other uh properties in our respective wards that we know likely might fall under the qualifications for that same statue, so that apparently we have the option to take uh litigative uh corrective measures as we probably have struggled to get those properties up to proper standard for not only the residents uh around the community but residents even residing at some of those properties.

Um I just wanted to also make a quick comment too around um this action.

I think as another colleague mentioned uh feels very disingenuous in many ways, um, especially when we know that this body has really embraced an approach towards a housing first model.

We know that is the effective way in addressing and reducing homelessness in the city, and we've worked very diligently and closely with the administration to bring forward uh funding proposals to support that goal.

Um, and right now we're being asked to essentially support an escalation amongst the mayor's administration to um target a property owner for doing in many ways what I've heard some of our my residents' share of what we have failed to do ourselves in actually addressing homelessness in a meaningful way, and the ways in which we have not shown up has been around just even recent weeks seeing the mayor propose cutting the emergency housing vouchers, which we established with uh very consistent partnership with the Hannepan County with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, which would have had the potential of reducing homelessness in our city up to 30 percent by their own estimations, and that is in alignment with a national proven record around housing first that did get chronically unhoused people in our county in other cities across the country into permanent housing and had wraparound services to make sure that they were able to give or be given the tools to lead um healthy productive lives.

Um so, in one aspect, it's is very hypocritical to say that we are doing everything that we can where we're literally seeing the mayor's administration also uh propose eliminating what we know to be effective solutions source addressing this.

Um so I know regardless of the outcome of today's vote, this body is committed to figuring figuring out how to do um data backed and advancing effective solutions that's grounded in a housing first approach, as opposed to continuing on uh just rubber stamping the mayor's eviction encampment and closures approach that only just moves people from one block to another and actually has not gotten us closer some five, six, seven years later towards actually reducing homelessness in our city.

Um so I just want to note that for the public record and thanks uh to the staff for providing clarity on how we have a legal basis for today's action.

Councilmember Palmasano, Council President, this gets riskier for the vulnerable vulnerable people living in this encampment and everyone living and trying to go to school around it, and our employees that work to proactively and may need to reactively respond to it.

I'll note we've been in discussion since approximately 9 45 this morning, and to that end, I'd like to call the question.

Councilmember Palmasano has called the question.

It's been properly seconded.

The clerk will call the roll.

Councilmember Rainville.

Councilmember Shothes.

Please, no, no.

Councilmember Vita.

Aye.

Councilmember Koske.

No.

Councilmember Wandsley.

Nay.

Councilmember Jenkins.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmasano.

Aye.

Councilmember Chowdhury.

No.

Councilmember Osman.

No.

Vice President Shagtai.

Nay.

President Payne.

There are four ayes and seven nays.

That motion fails.

I will recognize Councilmember Osman.

Thank you so much.

Council President.

And I do want to, I just don't have any question, but I do have an opinion.

As someone who represents the ward that has the most encampments.

One time we had dozen and dozen of encampments after the COVID.

Let's just be clear, we have failed our residents.

We have experienced money deaths, money overdoses, many uh challenges living outside, as you can imagine.

It's not a place for anybody to live, especially being called as first world country.

Um it's it's unacceptable.

And as city, the city and the government and county and state has a responsibility to take care of the most vulnerable population and be genuine and treat them a humane way possible.

With that being said, uh I dealt with money encampments, work with the staff, work with the administration, and uh in this case, uh I understand that the why the city wants to close because of the safety and health of well being of the individuals that live there, but at the same time, we're not uh uh holding the same standard as the city-owned land.

I have seen and I have experienced uh city owned lands that have been occupied that the administration refused to provide put a parties when I requested uh the trash was not being picked up, it was very unsafe.

And let me use let me just be very uh clear and specific to that location.

It's the Nanakasi 13th Avenue South and East 23rd Street, that has continued.

It started in August 2023 and it was closed January 4th uh 2024.

That's like six months of ongoing issue by the city on land.

The city has abandoned it, uh and the administration had did not have the same energy they have today with uh subsidies property to to close it down that that area.

They let they let it grow from 10 people to almost 200 people.

Um, they have refused, and the city has not taken the right responsibility and enforce themselves, uh enforce the law by themselves.

They have not issued a nuisance themselves.

I don't know how I'm not aware of any uh regulatory services giving CBIT nuisance that they need to clear this up.

So are we holding the same accountability as the resident of Minneapolis, the taxpayers of Minneapolis?

I think my argument, that's the question I have.

Um I am someone who don't want anybody to live outside, and I think everyone deserves a housing, but the reality is there isn't a lot of housing available.

We continue to offer shelters that are not there, you know.

Uh when you call the shelter, if you don't call 9 a.m., it's out.

So we're sharing this information saying that we're offering shelters.

We actually want to offer shelters, shelters are not available.

And of course, there are folks that are um you know that have accept services, and we're grateful to that, and we continue to provide it.

But my overall call is instead of just focusing on uh a small solution.

Is that might be temporary relief for the residents that live there and the folks that live there?

What is the long term plan?

Are we gonna continue to um you know lawsuit everyone that on in the city of Minneapolis?

Are we gonna uh bring uh um what is the what is the thing we're trying to set it up?

That's my question, and also, um, what is the city responsibility of taking care of its own land, you know, the the solution I have seen for the city is uh but better case and the city owned land, and that costs a lot of money.

Uh and when we have encampments there, are we holding the same standard as we are holding uh Mr.

Hamoodi and their property?

So that is just a bigger question that stands for me, and uh, and I think that uh that that we gotta come up with better solution than just stamping uh, you know, and putting uh a bandage and a solution that might give us a weak temporary and we have another one popping up.

What is the next it's gonna cost the city a lot of money, and the city of Tornija will be super busy uh in the next winter and next few months coming.

So that is the question I uh I that's the statement I have, and uh as a leaders, we have to take responsibility and do better for our city, and also we have to call out the missing uh elephant here, which is the county, and they state they cannot watch us struggle and deal with uh a lot of homelessness and encampments popping up everywhere.

City of Minneapolis is uh is has to be the lead of of taking that and find hopefully a better solution where we provide services where we treat humane way at the same time where we keep public safe and our community healthy and safe by uh making sure that we're not creating an environment that's hazardous to everyone else that lives in our city.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, President Payne.

I guess I wasn't gonna speak to this, but it it's just becoming overwhelmingly um clear.

I mean, this is a disingenuous conversation that we're having here.

Um this is a national crisis.

This is not a simple South Minneapolis problem.

This is a fentanyl problem that we need to address as a humane way of dealing with this, but this issue continues to create public health and public safety issues for our community and the residents that live there, and it is our responsibility to address that particular issue, which is what this motion intends to do.

Um accept support.

Many people have accepted support, many people have not, and so consequently trying to compare this issue to the camp Nino Kasi, which was met with resistance at every single step, all the eight or nine times that we tried to close this in a six-month period was met with resistance until it exploded.

So I I'm not even sure if we're talking about the same thing, because yeah, I'm not experiencing um the same sorts of um comments that are being made.

What I'm experiencing is the city tries to address the issue and people say no, we don't want to do that, and we have to be factual in our conversations.

My question was for the city attorney.

Is there anything in the statute that requires us to act?

It's a state statute that governs the entire state.

Does it require us to act?

Madam City Attorney.

Council President, Councilmember Jenkins, what do you?

I'm not totally sure that I understand your question in terms of whether the city is required to enforce on public health nuisances or in terms of whether the city council is required to act on authorizing litigation.

The question is, does it require us to act, or is it simply a tool that we can decide to use if we want to?

So council president, council member, I'm gonna answer, and if uh if uh assistant city attorney Anslyn uh wants to clean up anything, I say my understanding is under that particular statute, it authorizes the city to take enforcement actions up to and including uh court action, but is not uh it's not a mandatory on behalf of the city, it's an authorizing statute.

Thank you, and it's correct.

The attorney uh it does uh articulate uh that the health department has the purview to declare a public health nuisance um upon an investigation by that department.

Um it also does uh require that to the extent that there's a public health nuisance identified that the city take steps to enforce the abatement of that nuisance.

So the city does have obligation to uh to enforce the state uh health code, and to the extent that there's a public health nuisance declared um by the health department that meets the standard uh under the public health nuisance statute, the city does have to take measures to remediate and abate that situation.

So that is uh clarification and correction of what I said.

Uh attorney Ansulin is correct, all right.

Um thank you.

So it it is our responsibility to address this.

Um yeah, that concludes my remarks.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmasano.

I'm in cue for Councilmember Vita who is having trouble with her cue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, thank you for those comments, Councilmember Jenkins.

Um, I do think as leaders we have a responsibility to the residents, and that responsibility is when we're told that something is a public health crisis, that we should address it.

And that is exactly what this is.

As I've said to my colleagues, I've been there several times, and the public health crisis is visible.

You can smell it.

There are many things that is happening there that it's not safe, not only for the people that are there, but the people that are around it.

This um encampment is extremely close to a school where children like the owner could, you know, feel like a good Samaritan and want to go over and help and expose themselves to things that we don't want uh to happen.

The other thing is I think you know, this idea of misinformation.

I want to just be clear about the number of people there versus the number of beds.

Everyone in these camps don't always want to go to shelter.

So just because there's 60 people there and there's whatever number of beds that have been said available doesn't mean we don't have shelter for everyone who wants shelter.

It it's false information to say that because 60 people are there, that we need to have 60 beds at shelter or you know, some sort of housing for everyone that's there.

I mean, the the dealers and the predators are there too, that um most of the time in my experience have had somewhere to go.

This is just a hotbed for those sort of people to come and prey on folks who are suffering from addiction.

So I I think we gotta stop using these numbers, manipulating the numbers.

If there's 60 people there, it's not a guarantee that all 60 of those people are in need of some form of housing or treatment for that matter.

And so, like, let's be clear on who needs the help and get people the services we need.

I appreciate the mayor for bringing this before the council because it is for us to make a decision on.

I don't want people who are uh suffering from addiction to be criminalized, and there's a way for us to do that.

It's an unfortunate way, but there's a way for us to do that, and that's why I made the motion, and I hope the motion is supported.

Vice President Trump Tire.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, you know, I think like most of my colleagues here and um and our counterparts in the administration.

Um I believe that that unsheltered homelessness is a public health crisis.

I believe in the importance of people treating people who are going through this experience with humanity and with dignity.

Um I believe in a public health-centered solution to this very complex and complicated crisis.

Um, and and I'm really struggling with the solutions that are offered here today because humanity is not a lawsuit.

Dignity is not a lawsuit, and uh and and concern for public health and public well-being is not found in a lawsuit.

Um, housing and and meaningful wraparound services are the solution.

A solution really here is not a lawsuit.

Um just today we learned that you know there are what 33 people that that we know are living in this encampment um that that are ready to enter into shelter that are ready to enter into more permanent housing solutions, um, and just as of today, there are 16 shelter beds available.

So, really um what we are what we are talking about here is either rubber stamping the establishment of a new encampment because there just isn't enough space for people to go, or I don't know what, um, continuing with the status quo either way, though, um, because at the end of the day, I'm not seeing the path forward uh, you know, led by this administration, supported by our our partners at um at the service provider and and governmental agency level to ensure that every person who is living in this encampment has a safe and stable and dignified place to go, and um and and closing down this encampment isn't going to prevent a new one from from opening up when there just isn't enough space for people.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Councilmember Chowdhury.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I'll first start off by saying that one, I was disappointed that the discussion in closed session was uh cut short.

And I know that was a decision that my colleagues collectively made, but I am disappointed by that decision, and I'm also disappointed um in remarks made saying that our conversation is disingenuous.

Quite frankly, there hasn't been a time and place for this conversation that's been given.

The conversation about addressing unsheltered homelessness in the city of Minneapolis is constantly avoided until we come into emergency situations.

This council in 2023 in December of 2023 declared that unsheltered homelessness was a public health emergency.

We have warned that this would happen over and over again.

We have sent letters, we have showed up, we have requested that we come together with community groups to address the situation.

There have been different efforts to form different working groups with council members, policymakers that I think should be a part of the conversations with staff and community leaders if we're ever going to move the solutions forward for a short-term, mid-term, long-term plan to address unsheltered homelessness.

But we have been consistently told that we can't be a part of those conversations.

There is a potential for a formation of a working group earlier this year, when we were called together by indigenous leaders, and I had made the suggestion: okay, why don't we have a third-party liaison between the county, state, and city?

And I think it's also important that elected leaders are a part of this because we represent constituents and we also have to make policies.

And a lot of people took that in good faith, but what it turned into is a working group where we were cut out, and now they're proposing recommendations that are supposed to come.

I don't know when, and that is really disappointing, and I think it's endemic of this issue because we are constantly on this wheel of trying to figure out how we solve this problem.

And the question that I have that is a rhetorical question, I don't need to answer from the attorneys, is when's the next lawsuit going to be?

When are we gonna do this again?

Which school is gonna be next that we're gonna we're going to have people in front of that are in need of addiction services that are in need of housing, and also once this encampment is disband disbanded, where are we moving the public health crises to and the people that are impacted by it?

Probably into different neighborhoods, and there's a predictability to that because this happens over and over again.

We've seen it, it's been documented by the press.

I appreciate the press for documenting it as closely as they have because it is an issue, and so to say that this is a solution today, it's not, it's a band-aid, it's doing what we've always done as the city of Minneapolis, and it is it is shameful because we're not guaranteed a difference.

I, as a policymaker, have advocated for safe outdoor spaces for creating a navigation center.

I moved a hundred thousand dollars as an item that was unanimously supported to take Minnesota Indigenous Women's Resource Center that created a pop-up warming center that was acting as a navigation hub to get that funding because they were doing it from crowdsource funding, and we're like, no, we need to save lives for people that are outside in the cold, and also this is a space where people are actually accepting resources and accepting housing because when you're in an encampment and you're around all of these different things that are impacting your public health, and you're also not in the right state of mind, you're not in the best position to say, yeah, I'm gonna accept resources right now.

You need a place where you feel safe, you feel clean, you feel heard, you have some trusted relationships there.

And of course, there are people who are service resistant, that absolutely does exist, but there are models that are effective that help people who are service resistant, like a vivo village tiny homes.

And I'm not saying let's build an Aviva village tiny homes in 20, 30 days.

We should we should go towards it, but a navigation center that follows that example would certainly be helpful, would certainly be helpful.

And in the questions that I asked, I got no information on the number of people in the 61 days of the duration of this encampment that have access detox or addiction services successfully.

No idea of how many housing vouchers went out because that information wasn't given.

Was shared that the only the only things to mitigate health impacts was some needle pickup, trash pickup, and all in partnership with people in our community who volunteered to put that together, and a lack of creativity and vision.

Um I disagree with the property owner not letting the city in to provide uh porta potties and hand washing stations and water.

I think people deserve that, and it's important for for the cleanliness and the safety of every person in there.

But there's ways to be creative about that.

That's why we have like a public right-of-way.

Um, and I would say this was also stated in some conversations as a last resort resort.

I do not think we have tried everything that we could try to mitigate this situation, and again, what I believe based off of so much evidence from other encampment clearings is we're just going to form other encampments.

We're just going to form other encampments, and it's just going to move the problem around, and we're not actually solving it.

And there isn't a time and place for this conversation because the table is never set for us to have that conversation to have a real working group.

So we have to do it in these moments of crisis and emergency and um high controversy where our community members are going to watch and everything that we're going to talk about is going to be relegated to a single headline or a press press release that sanitizes the situation and neatly puts it into a box.

And I'm tired of it because we're failing our city.

We just are housed and unhoused.

We're just completely failing our city over and over again.

And what would solve it is just literally a plan for action, including all voices to do it, a navigation center, safe outdoor spaces, following the lead of other cities, like Denver, the House a Thousand Initiative.

There's the list goes on and on because we've been working on this for a really long time.

We've moved around funding to work on this.

How do we get three more MIWRCs in our city to be effective?

And then the last thing I'll just say about this conversation about encampments occurring and private property versus city property, and we keep on pointing to Nanakasi, I'll just take Nanakasi out of the conversation.

In the last two encampment reports, there have been 13 different encampments on city parcels, one of them in Ward 12 in um 2024 that I had asked that I had asked for resources over and over again and didn't get it, and it led to three people dying.

So that's I'll give my time back, but that's what I need to say.

Councilmember Osman.

Yeah, just coming back to the double standard, uh the city on land uh versus a private property.

I I do want to just highlight one more time that I have requested and I have emails to prove for portal parties to be provided in on a casi, which was rejected.

Six months.

There was no portal parties at all.

And now we're telling Mr.

Hamoori to provide portal parties.

So the double standard is my question.

Um the master enforcer of the law and the legal is uh Mirajica Fry.

He can enforce the policies and then um laws that we have with the city of Minneapolis.

You can tell the staff to to act this way, or he can just stay quiet.

And um nuisance has been an issue with every encampment that pops up everywhere.

So just the double standard as a city, that is my uh my statement and my question.

Why is the devil standard?

Why are we not holding ourselves accountable the same way we're holding private property accountable?

And another question leads to why are we not holding accountable Mindot?

You've seen under the bridges.

You have seen under the bridge 50 people standing there for last what few years.

Uh are we uh suing the state?

House of balls has people lost their life, and right on C the Riverside behind this uh U.S.

bank stadium.

Have we sued them yet?

Have we done two people lost?

And the only way the governor has acted or the state have acted is that because I put out a statement that five news outlets picked it up that I say, if this was uh somewhere in other city, uh outside the metro, he would have acted quickly.

But this was see the riverside.

Um he abandoned and forgot about that people live here and people exist here.

So the devil standard is the one I'm gonna continue to come back.

Uh if we're enforcing the law, we have to enforce all laws, not just the ones that looks good uh for the administration.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Palmsano.

I am in cue for councilmember Vita who had trouble getting into it.

This will be her second time speaking.

Thank you, Councilmember Palmsano.

Uh, President Payne, I just wanted to quickly say that um, you know, I I think we're not holding the county responsible for what they're responsible for here.

We were told by our staff that there's been 30 plus housing vouchers offered and also addiction services, and the county has those numbers.

Staff didn't have those numbers available today, but that it's clear to me that there's been some coordination of resources in this location, and the county is doing their part, and the city has a part.

I don't think it's fair to staff and to all to those of us who really do want a solution to not acknowledge that things are happening there, that people are offering services.

It might not be the city, and that's because the city doesn't have we're not in the housing business.

The county is, and they have a lot of money to do so.

So if 30 plus housing vouchers were offered, I'd love for maybe our president to talk to the president of the county board about what the coordinated services look like and bring that back to the council instead of just faulting the city for not doing something.

This is a coordinated effort.

The only way we're gonna get through this on the right side of this is with all of us working together and all of us taking responsibility for our parts in this.

It has been told to us that it is a public health crisis.

That is the problem here.

It's nothing to fight over here.

I don't want to be responsible for a public health crisis.

And so I'd love for maybe our uh president to get with the president of the county board and find out exactly what services have been given or offered, or what services are available from the county, the um agency who has a lot of money, way more money than we do.

Maybe they want to, or maybe they have in the works this center that some of my colleagues are talking about.

We don't know, but it's really disingenuous to have these con these kind of conversations when that conversation hasn't been had first.

I see council Jenkins next in queue, but she is not there.

Um, I'll throw myself in cue, uh, just to go through the numbers.

Uh Director of Leska's referred to the public dashboard on Hennepin County.

Uh I got that up right here over the last 30 days.

The most number of beds that were available were 34.

That was at 10 a.m.

But uh when you talk to service providers, we know that the numbers dwindle as we get closer and closer to evening.

So the usual most accurate number for the day is gonna be the 10 p.m.

number.

That number hovers between zero beds and twelve with an average of three, because most days of the week it is uh zero beds available by 10 o'clock at night.

So we we have a math problem here uh fundamentally, which is we've got 60 folks that are staying at this encampment overnight.

Um we have a ongoing relationship with about 28 of those folks.

Uh and there's an additional 30 folks that we suspect are more transient and may have actual shelter and are spending their days at the encampment but leaving at night.

So that leaves 30 people that are well, 32 people that are unaccounted for if we move forward with this and evict this encampment and have a perfect placement for the 28th that we have an existing relationship with.

That leaves 32 people without shelter.

Uh that doesn't feel acceptable to me uh as a solution to just say, well, we'll just revisit this conversation again with those 32 people in a week's time and a month's time and a year's time.

We need to have something that's more durable than that.

But uh I tried to buy some time for councilmember Jenkins.

Oh, uh Councilmember Chowdhury.

Thank you, President Payne.

Yeah, I just figured I'd get in queue to finish my remarks and come in the second time.

So just going back to numbers, I appreciate you sharing that like the numbers are just not adding up here, like shelter beds versus number of people, especially people who are willing to accept services, right?

There is a number of people who are willing or in the process, and that doesn't line up.

And also we understand that shelter doesn't mean oh, you're going to be in shelter for like weeks at a time.

It's we we all have to understand that it's like a short amount of time at the beginning of the day, at the end of the day, and then you have to go about your day, and then you have to get at the back of the line and try to hope for shelter again, right?

It's very difficult, it's a tough situation.

Especially if you're a family, like family shelters are really, really full.

Um, going back to numbers of encampments on private property versus city property.

This encampment has been here for 61 days, and then on city properties, with our own data that's been collected in the last two encampment reporting ordinances, there is an there is an average of at least 66 days for an encampment on a city-owned property, barring an outlier, and the lowest being five days and the highest being 153 days.

And I think we need to sit with that.

And I also need to say that this is getting to this level of needing to do a lawsuit and not looking at housing as an option and figuring out what other options that we have is a real clear example that this is a policy failure and a jurisdiction jurisdictional coming together failure in like the highest order.

There have been many opportunities in the last few years to address this, and in the and and if Hennepin County, we can virtually end veteran homelessness, reducing unsheltered homelessness in a significant amount should not be this difficult.

I have put together pop-up service provision tents with other partners when I was not getting support from the city administration.

So there are things that can be done here, and it's really disappointing that we're in this situation, and I think we're setting such a such a I don't even have the adjective for it, such a precedent.

Um I wonder what will happen if we come back to a similar moment.

And I hope we don't have to, because at that by that point, maybe we would have actually tried to make an effort to end homelessness and not just have it be something that we say to get people's hopes up.

I hope we actually put the care, the time, and the intention to do so because our residents deserve better.

And if the goal is to abate a public health nuisance, then create it with the potential of creating multiple more throughout our city without a plan in place for people to go is not how we how we get to that.

Thank you, President Payne.

Um, you know, I'm not sure if we've tried everything.

I do know in 2018, 2019, we tried a navigation center.

We spent three million dollars on a navigation center to address the wall of forgotten natives, and literally all of the agencies that would run a navigation center said to us, they will never do it again.

So, no, we probably haven't tried everything, but we have tried many things, including building the a vivo center to address this issue.

So I'm just hoping people bring forward solutions.

What is the solution?

Do you can you bring that forward?

And we can try that.

Thank you.

The solution would be to instead of doing this lawsuit that it's only gonna move people to the next block under bridges into the Phillips community, instead of doing something that's not gonna house the people that are living in the encampment, is to instead move people into a new location that is safe, that is secure, that has a service tent that has our service providers on site helping people navigate addiction, mental health, um, and housing resources, helping people move into permanent and stable housing.

That is a solution to this issue.

It is about the political will, though.

I'm going to be very clear.

Thank you.

And I support and I support that.

And I would support that.

I would love for you to support it too, Consumer Junkins, if I bring it forward.

So you'd say let's do it then.

Instead of bringing forward this lawsuit, let's move people into actual housing.

Let's move people into a navigation center.

Let's bring forward that action.

Would you support that if I bring that proposal forward?

Thank you.

All right.

Uh, I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll on the motion that is before us.

Okay.

Well, solutions.

This is a motion to approve the uh litigation made by Vita, second by Palmasano.

Councilmember Rainville.

Uh Councilmember Chavez.

No.

Councilmember Vita.

Aye.

Councilmember Koske.

Aye.

Councilmember Wands is absent.

Council Member Jenkins.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmasano.

Aye.

Councilmember Chowdhury.

No.

Councilmember Osman.

Aye.

Vice President Shugtai.

Nay.

President Payne.

Nay.

There are six ayes and four nays.

That motion carries.

And that completes all the business before us.

And seeing nothing else before us, this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Yes.