Good afternoon.

My name is Jason Chavez, and I'm the chair of the committee of the whole.

I'm going to call to order a regular committee meeting for Thursday, October 7th, 2025.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation.

These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase accessibility of our proceedings to the community.

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

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

At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call a roll to verify the presence of a quorum.

Councilmember Paint.

Present.

Wandsley is absent.

Rainville.

Present.

Present.

Ellison is absent.

Osman is absent.

Cashman is absent.

Jenkins is absent.

Chigtai.

Present.

Howski?

Present.

Paul Masana.

Present.

Vice Chair Chowdry.

Present.

Move to amend the agenda to include a legislative directive authored by Councilmember Wandsley.

Um would ask for a second to that motion.

Second.

Colleagues, is there any questions on the motion to amend the agenda to add this directive under discussion?

Seeing no further question, all those in favor say aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions.

And that carries.

The agenda is now before us.

But before we begin, we'll first start off with uh committee reports.

I'll first pass it to uh the administration and twice oversight committee chaired by councilmember Wansey.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

First, also like to be recorded as present.

Um an eye on the amendment.

The without objection, um, we haven't voted on the actual item yet, so oh, just that oh, the adding of the amendment.

We're we added so we're gonna be voting on that at the end of the meeting.

I mean, if you want to be reflected on on the motion, I don't think it's necessary, but yeah.

Um if the clerks can please know uh council member once he's presence.

Thank you.

And Cashman.

Councilmember Cashman.

Um I'm actually going to ask uh my vice chair to take over and read.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Um the administration and enterprise oversight committee is bringing forward 18 items for consideration on Thursday.

Item number one is a gift acceptance for airfare and lodging uh for one of our homegrown Minneapolis managers.

Item number two is a grant application to the Secretary of State for accessibility for polling places for disability access.

Item number three is a grant from the Department of Public Safety.

Um for a traffic safety resource prosecutor to support our drug evaluation and classification program.

Item number four are contracts with various organizations for partnership engagement fund projects.

Item number five is the contract with GovWorks for quality assurance software for 911.

Item number six are various vendors for the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Urban and Community Forestry Grant for Tree Outreach.

Item number seven is a contract amendment with Meyer for the Hennepin Avenue Reconstruction Project.

Item number eight is a contract amendment with the Art Conservation Center for Public Art Maintenance and Conservation Services.

Item number nine is a contract amendment with Shaw Lundquist for City Hall Restack Phase 3C project.

Item number 10 is a contract amendment with birch tree care and precision landscape for hazardous tree removal services.

Item 11 is contract amendment with U.S.

Bank and Elevan for merchant card and related services.

Item 12 is large diameter storm main inspection and televising for this year for Southwest part of the city.

A charge of dis discrimination, MDCR.

And item number 16 and 17 are workers' compensation claims of Mark Menninger and Aaron Banks.

Contract number item number 18 is a contract amendment for better futures for occasional property maintenance services.

I'm happy to answer or refer any questions.

Thank you so much.

There is no one on queue.

So next up we'll go on to the budget committee with the chair of that committee, Vice President Chuck Dye.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um the budget committee is bringing forward one item to Thursday's meeting for consideration, um, which is an appointed position in the 311 service center of Deputy 311 Service Center director.

Um and this is just amending a previous uh action by this council and correcting some points and salary range for it for this um position.

I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you.

There are no questions.

So next we'll go on to the business housing and zoning committee with the vice chair of that committee.

Uh uh council member and vice chair uh chowdery.

Thanks, Chair Chavez.

The Biz Committee will be bringing 10 items forward to full council.

Item one is approving a liquor and sidewalk cafe license for Bellcore.

Item two is approving a liquor license for classics kitchen and cocktails.

Item three is approving an ordinance related to rental licenses.

Item number four is considering an ordinance related to alcohol license applications.

This item was sent forward without recommendation.

Item number five is considering a license revocation for Camden Social.

This item was sent forward without recommendation.

Item number six is approving a liquor license.

Item number seven is approving 40 liquor license renewals.

Item number eight is accepting the 2025 spring brownfield grant round.

Item number nine is accepting a grant to update animal shelter housing.

And finally, item number 10 is authorizing a modification to a previous loan for the Dreamland on 38th project.

I'll stand for any questions or would be happy to refer any questions.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Chair.

So just uh notice everybody on uh Councilmember Vita and I are going to co-author an amendment to that uh under 21 ordinance.

And you'll see you you have the language, we'll get it to you again, and we can discuss it uh at the full meeting.

Great.

And this is referring to item number four, which is related to the alcohol license applications, right?

Correct.

Thank you.

Great.

Seeing all further questions.

Next up we'll go on to the climate and infrastructure committee chaired by councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

The Climate and Infrastructure Committee is bringing forward seven items.

One is non-governmental tax exempt parcel, streetlight operation fees and assessments.

Two is non-governmental tax exempt parcel street maintenance assessments.

Three is First Avenue South from Franklin to Grant Reconstruction Project with a project designation, cost estimate, and setting a public hearing.

Number four is 2025, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Local Trail Connections grant for the North Side Greenway.

Five is the North Side Greenway phase one concept layout approval.

Six is updating our uniform assessment rates.

From 24th Street East to Lake Street East, project designation, cost estimate, and setting a public hearing.

I'll stand for questions.

Thank you.

There are no questions.

And lastly, we have the public health and safety committee.

We're bringing forward two items.

Item number one is a home growing Minneapolis Food Council appointments.

And item number two is approving a legislative directive related to the shooting of Davis Maturti.

And just want to let you all know that Council Member Wansi and I are bringing an amendment to correct the date on this legislative directive to reflect October 29th, 2025, not 2026.

So that will come before us on phone council.

And seeing that no one else is on queue, we can then begin the consent agenda before we begin the public hearing component of this.

Item number one is a resolution that approves the ranks of the 2026 Capital Budget Request and submits these to the Commissioner of Management and Budget.

This item is before us today at Cal and not the Integral Mentor Relations Committee because it is time-sensitive item.

Staff is here here with us today to answer any questions as well.

Colleagues, do we have any questions on this item?

No.

Okay.

So with that.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

And that item carries.

Now we have our public hearing item, which approves an ordinance that allows for the creation of an arts commission and funding for public art.

I will welcome up City Clerk Carl for your brief presentation before we open the public hearing.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair.

As noted, my name is Casey Carl, the privilege of serving as clerk for the City of Minneapolis.

My office provides centralized administration and support for the city's appointed boards and commissions and is leading uh the work of implementing reforms that this body enacted by ordinance about this time two years ago in 2023.

Under the provisions of that ordinance, a new classification system was adopted that categorizes all of the city's boards and commissions within a five-tier system.

Most of the reforms, as you know, directly impact the bodies that are in the third tier, which focuses on advisory bodies created under the home rule authority that's vested in city council and which do not have separate independent authority away from the council, and which primarily exist to provide advice and recommendations to the city's governing body.

As you know, the clerk's office has successfully re-established seven existing tier three advisory bodies already, consistent with the terms of that enabling ordinance.

Today we're here to re-establish the existing arts commission, which has been determined to be a tier three advisory body.

Prior to the enactment of the reform ordinance, the arts commission was one of two bodies that were created by ordinance, but which were classified as tier three bodies.

Under the reform ordinance, tier three bodies are created by resolution, not ordinance.

So our work with respect to the arts commission has been preparing a standard resolution to re-establish the existing body consistent with the terms of our reform ordinance, and that resolution is before you today.

In addition to the resolution re-establishing the arts commission as a tier three advisory body, staff have submitted the bylaws and rules for approval, which do align with the already adopted standard bylaws and rules for appointed boards and commissions.

They've been slightly modified to reflect the unique needs of operating for the arts commission based on our collaboration over the past several months with the staff liaisons in the Arts and Cultural Affairs Department.

We request your positive recommendation recommendation for approval by council of the resolution re-established in the Arts Commission and approving their bylaws and rules.

And with that, Mr.

Chair, I'd be happy to respond to questions or concerns after the public hearing has been completed.

Thank you, Clerk Carl.

I appreciate the presentation.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Chair Chavez, uh City Council members, pardon my voice.

I'm getting over some kind of a cold.

Um I chair the Minneapolis Arts Commission and I'm really uh appreciating this opportunity to address you today.

Before I get um started on our comments for the existing draft resolution and bylaws, I just wanted to remind you that we did adopt a resolution in September of 2023 at the time that you were considering the Chapter 10 um ordinance that uh the city clerk just talked about, reason kind of re-establishing the rules for advisory bodies and commissions.

So that was forwarded to you, so you should have that from at least a couple of years ago.

And I say that just so that you know we've been thinking about this for a couple of years, right along with city staff, and we've um really appreciated their attention and their uh giving information to us.

So um, as I said, I want to address both the resolution and the bylaws.

I'll go through our concerns with the resolution, the draft resolution as proposed first.

Uh first of all, we actually believe that we should stay a tier two body created by ordinance uh as the city clerk referred to.

We were originally established um via ordinance in 1975, 50 years ago.

So we believe that um we at that point or even now that we have specific delegated decision-making authority within a limited sphere recognizably of municipal poly policy and operations.

We approve project and site selection for some public arts projects.

We approve conservation and maintenance plans for artworks, and we approve the acquisition of new artworks.

We don't support being created by resolution, and as proposed, only advising the mayor, city council, and arts and cultural affairs department staff on arts-related capital investments, public art policies, and the commissioning placement and maintenance of public artworks.

The second point I wanted to make is related to the first, it's really about arts leadership in Minneapolis.

We believe in a city the size of Minneapolis where arts and culture aren't.

Oh, I didn't know there was a time limit.

Thank you.

And if you can submit those uh debt public testimony online as well, and our clerk's gonna help you get that to all of us.

Okay.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Howard Dotson.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Chavez, Councilmembers.

I emailed you some resources about expressive therapies.

I've seen the power, the healing power of art for 30 years.

At Annunciation, we had Crans and Markers out for the kids.

At many art fairs, I recruit artists.

And I'm wondering if the art commission could work with some of our other departments so that art can be a healing resource as we continue to recover from so many traumatic events.

I've seen the healing power of art with refugee children in Lebanon and Jordan in Ukraine.

It's the same expressive therapies that we use with the kids at Annunciation.

So as an art commission.

I support their work.

And I'm hoping that we have another response like we had at the Lindhurst.

That we have artists that have been cleared embedded and we can have more artists supporting the healing work in our community.

So I support the art commission and I'm not I don't have a position on what level tier, but I think getting more artists integrated into your other departments, they can be a source of healing for our community.

All right.

Um if anybody else wishes to provide testimony, please sign up.

All right.

Given that there's no indication that people want to provide more testimony, I will now close the public hearing and open it up this topic for discussion.

I'll first pass it on to the author of this resolution and ordinance, Councilmember Pomassano.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you for your comments today.

Um we greatly appreciate the work of the arts commission in our city and the arts community.

Um there's no question here.

We all support the work of this body.

I do have a couple questions for Clerk Carl relative to some of the letter that was sent by the arts commission and then also the testimony today.

Um Mr.

Carl, my understanding was that this was about creating consistency amongst boards and commissions.

Can you remind us of the goals that we had hoped to achieve with reforming all boards and commissions?

Uh through the chair, thank you, uh Councilmember Palasana for that question.

Yes, there were a series of both principles and goals, and I'll speak maybe first to the principles.

From a from a principal perspective, when we reorganized and adopted the reform ordinance, we said that the principles to be used by the city in creating its boards and commissions would be that there would be an open and competitive process for nominations and appointments, and that we would work to assure equity in terms of uh getting the greatest possible level of engagement from all of the communities that comprise the city of Minneapolis.

So that was a very high-level principled purpose for our reform.

But from a pragmatic standpoint in terms of operations, our goals were really about standardizing and providing uniformity across the 57 different boards and commissions that we have in terms of their operations in terms of how meetings are planned and conducted, uh, in terms of the staff level support that are offered to those.

And the centerpiece of those operational reforms was that five-tier system that was enacted by ordinance, and it creates uh in those five tiers an ability for us to really look at how a body is created and to develop policies that either apply uniformly to all five tiers or to one or multiple uh types of tiers based on the type of policies uh we're trying to do from a council perspective.

Um another thing, in addition to sort of uniform standardization for operations is we really wanted to work, especially with the advisory boards classified in tier three to tie their work more closely to the work of the enterprise by requiring both an annual work plan that would be uh tied to the strategic goals and priorities articulated by the mayor and council for the city enterprise, and also an annual work report saying here are the things that we've accomplished over the year that tie to that work plan, all of which then tie back to the work of the city and those strategic goals and priorities that were identified by the mayors and the council.

And so from that perspective, bringing that level of consistency and uniformity in the standardized operations to all 57 boards and commissions was one of the principal goals of that reform.

Thank you.

I know that we um all unanimously adopted that um ordinance about a year and a half ago.

I came on as an author of this a lot more recently.

I know a lot of work had been done certainly before it got to me.

Um can you give me a sense of how long your office has been working on this?

Um through the chair.

As council is aware, when we adopted the ordinance in 2023, I mentioned that I started work on that reform in 2011.

So from the clerk's office, we've worked on it for over a decade.

But in terms of the nitty-gritty, we really started working um on the details of those reforms in about 2021 and 2022.

Um and then in particular with the Arts Commission subsequent to the adoption of the reform ordinance in 2023.

Um we started working with them in earnest this past year, and for specific details, I'd be happy to recognize our program manager, Julie Hovland, who's led that effort, and she can maybe highlight some of the work we've done with the staff from the Arts and Cultural Affairs Department on bringing forward this resolution.

Sure.

Just briefly, I think that would help because I think a lot of work has been done.

This isn't something that's really being done to them, but has been being worked on with them for a while.

Uh good afternoon, uh, Chair Chavez and committee members.

Um I'm Julie Havlin, the program manager for the ABCs.

Um yes, as Clerk Carl mentioned, um, we began work with the department um in March of this year.

Um with the even though we were standardizing the um the boards, there were certain elements that we could get input from the department, such as membership makeup, uh whether they wanted to designate um qualifications per seat.

Um then we came to a final working document with the department, with the attorney, and um lots of members of the ABC program staff around on May 1st, I guess we finalized that draft, um, which is now before you to be adopted.

And can you tell me, or Mr.

Carl, whoever's best are the functions or responsibilities of the Arts Commission changing in any way?

Um we developed the draft by looking at the current um uh ordinance that they're operating under, and we tried to match that as closely as we can.

Um we updated only language or took away um items that um were no longer part of the city based on the older structure of the city, but for the most part, the duties have remained the same.

I have one question.

Sorry.

Uh and through the chair, Councilor Palmasano, I would say that although the duties of the Arts Commission largely remain unchanged between what was in ordinance and what's in resolution, one thing that will change for the Arts Commission, and this is a change that affects all boards and commissions, is uh in the ordinance, it requires that meetings of public bodies be conducted in public facilities, so government-owned or leased facilities.

And some of our boards and commissions have been conducting their public meetings in non-public buildings and non-public spaces.

Um the uniformity of the ordinance is it requires that public meetings of public bodies be in public spaces.

Uh principally that's to assure accessibility, uh, which also includes compliance with ADA requirements, and also to minimize risk or exposure by the city if there were to be some kind of a challenge or problem using a space not owned or operated by the city.

So that would be a change from from their previous experience.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair one very last short question.

Um, how many of our boards and commissions have already been reformed at this point into this new construct and how many are left to process?

Uh I may have to call on Ms.

Hovlin uh to stir my memory, but I understand that we have completed of the tier three bodies, which is the primary focus, seven, and I believe we have seven more, maybe approximately approximately seven more of the tier three bodies left to reform, which will take us into next year.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Chair, I think this kind of makes my point of of my questions and why I think that this makes sense, and it's it doesn't come as a surprise, and this is just us moving forward with what we said we were gonna do last year.

Thank you.

Do any of my other colleagues have any questions or comments?

Otherwise, no one else is on queue.

Sounds good.

Um see no further discussion.

I'll move approval of this item.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those of poll say nay.

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it, and that has been forwarded to full council.

Now we will receive an update to receive and file from the health department on the 2025 licensee schedule.

Specifically for the pre-car CO2 equivalence.

I will welcome up Senior Environmental Program Manager Jenny for that presentation.

Good afternoon, Chair Chavez, Council members.

My name is Jenny Lansing.

I'm the senior environmental project manager in the health department.

Excuse me, I'm also getting over a cold.

So this presentation is in response to a legislative directive.

The legislative directive asked for a fee study of the pollution control annual registration fee for carbon dioxide equivalents to reflect updated expense and revenue estimates.

The fee studies should be based on a 95% recovery ratio and align with all relevant financial policies.

I'm going to begin and end with this same slide as it has important financial information.

At the top, you can see the expenses that can be recovered with the PCAR CO2E fee.

There is 1.25 million in green cost share work that we have determined can be supported by the PCAR fees.

There is the 120,000 cost of the new industrial outreach specialist who will be focused on working with facilities paying the new CO2E fee to help them complete green cost share pollution reduction projects.

The total expenses are 1.37 million.

At a 95% recovery rate, this would be a recovery revenue of just over 1.3 million dollars.

This results in a PCAR CO2E fee of $5 per ton with a total cap of 175,000 per facility.

The reason for the cap is that we are limited in the amount of revenue we can collect by the cost of mitigation.

The cap of 175,000 was chosen because these facilities are eligible to apply for this amount through the innovative green cost share, of which fiable projects are likely to be funded.

In addition to the $5 per ton fee, a 13% increase in specific PCAR equipment fees was passed, which adds a little over 163,000 to the revenue.

This will be explained in further detail in the presentation.

Together, this results in a revenue of 1.29 million dollars, which works out to be a 94% cost recovery.

We have been working with Braun Intertech since early spring on a fee study to aid in determining the PCAR fee recommendation for carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.

In phase one of their work with us, Braun Intertech developed a database that included facility information on annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and liquid fuel usage for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023, as well as information about on-site equipment using liquid fuel.

In phase two of their work, Braun identified carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduction projects based on the identified emissions sources.

These projects were evaluated based on their feasibility, economic viability, and environmental impact.

The fee study focused on the use of liquid fuel, which is an area in which we hoped to expand the work of our green cost share program.

The fuel usage data combined with the information obtained from the air permits, indicated that the most common diesel using equipment in the facilities were emergency generators and boilers.

Some facilities had dual fuel equipment, which is equipment with the capacity to use both diesel and natural gas.

Potential carbon emissions reduction projects focused on alternatives to these diesel-fired equipment.

Alternatives evaluated included using batteries, fuel cells, biodiesel, ethanol and ethanol blends, natural gas, and propane.

In addition to these alternative fuels, the option to replace old equipment with newer and more efficient equipment was also explored in detail.

Then each alternative technology or upgrade was evaluated for feasibility, economic viability, and emissions reduction potential.

It was determined that the most feasible, economically viable, and highest emissions reduction option for emergency generators would be a switch from liquid fuel to natural gas.

There is a 28% carbon emissions reduction when switching diesel to natural gas.

Replacing old equipment with newer, more efficient equipment that could be powered by natural gas or propane was considered to be a viable option for facilities with replaceable equipment.

However, since most of the identified boilers were already dual fuel, the ability to run on both natural gas and diesel, they were not considered as potential projects.

PAR air emission fees are charged per ton of emissions.

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

In order to get to the necessary 95% cost recovery, we would have had to charge over $600 per ton.

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

In addition, it was determined that some projects were likely not logistically feasible.

For example, Abbott Hospital has 13 diesel-powered emergency generators, which are required by federal 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%, we decided to expand the scope.

Thus, we expanded the scope to 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 could apply for up to $500,000 in grant funding for the large-scale greenhouse gas emission reduction projects through the Green Cost Share Program.

As I said on the first slide, to reach our cost recovery goals, we also added a 13% increase on PCAR equipment categories that contribute to carbon emissions.

These are equipment that are operated on combustible fuel, combustible liquid or gaseous fuel, or chemical storage units that may be used for the storage of the fuel.

There are about 20 different registrations that fall under the three categories of energy noise and air pollution fees, commercial and industrial manufacturing equipment and processes fees, and chemical storage fees.

This increase will add 163,202 towards the 95% cost recovery goal.

So to recap, the total expense that can be recovered with the new PCAR CO2E fee and PCAR equipment fee increases is 1.37 million dollars.

The 95% recovery goal is just over 1.3 million dollars.

This results in a PCAR CO2 e-fee of five dollars per ton with a total cap of 175,000 per facility.

In addition to the $5 per ton fee, the 13% increase in specific PCAR equipment fees adds a little over 163,000 to the revenue.

Together, these fee changes results in a revenue of 1.29 million dollars, which works out to be a 94% cost recovery.

With that, I can stand for questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

No questions, but I do have a couple of comments first.

Thank you for this presentation.

I know we weren't able to get to it in PHS, so thank you for the flexibility of coming before Cal today and sharing this information.

I think this body knows that climate change and carbon emissions are a quite urgent emergency that's facing our residents, that's facing our country, our city, and we are being called to step up with bold and innovative solutions, especially with uh federal administration that is very hostile towards climate resiliency initiatives.

And I want to say a special thanks to our constituents who organize very extensively to get this body to pass a climate equity plan that lists a multitude of bold and innovative strategies for us to meet this moment.

Um without their urging, um, we wouldn't have work like this to consider.

Um building upon that, I know my office as well as many of my colleagues have probably received uh calls and emails urging the city to majorly increase our funding so that we can advance those dozens upon dozens of strategies and actions and policy suggestions that's listed in our climate equity work or sorry, climate equity plan that we passed in 2023.

And we're also having ongoing conversations with you know, consideration of the impacts from the federal administration around the significant gaps in funding that we're contending with uh as we're also trying to meet this need.

And I know a number of my colleagues, specifically council member Cashman, uh Council Vice President Chuck Tie and Councilmember Um Koske are looking and bringing initiatives forward for us to really re-evaluate how we uh continue to elevate funding at the scale that's needed to support this work.

Um, that said, I do want to hone in, you know, of course, like carbon fees uh for the past three years, community members identify as uh a way in which we could meet that need and bring in self-sustaining revenue uh to do so, to do that mitigation work and have polluters themselves foot the bill without having to continuously pass that burden on to taxpayers who are having to deal with both the effects of climate change and pollution in their communities, um, and also having to uh pay ideally for any effort to mitigate those damaging changes and subsidize that work.

And that's why I was very um moved to start this work on carbon fees about three years ago because I recognize should the administration embrace it, it would be a valuable tool for us to um advance our climate resiliency work.

Now I will note though, throughout these past three years, and I've never shied away from acknowledging that, there's been a tremendous amount of challenges in working with the health department to meet this work with urgency and um seriousness with implementation of it, all the way dating back to our goal was to have this fee implemented back in 2022.

Um, and after several months of meeting and strategizing with the goal of having something implemented in 2022, then stalled out a bit, and then in 2023, we were able to get a response from Director Hanlon saying that there was a timeline in which the department planned to do administrative background work, bringing in a consultant so that we could have a PCAR fee ready ideally for 2024 at least.

And staff failed to meet that timeline once again.

And I again just want to say thank you to my colleagues for continuously holding the department and its leadership accountable, the administration accountable in spite of major delays, in spite of uh contracts not being executed so that we could get fees brought forward for us to implement it earlier so we could take this burden off of taxpayers earlier and do this mitigation work earlier.

Um I want to say thank you to my colleagues who continuously supported every legislative action to move it forward.

And it's um because of you, we were not only able to finally pass a fee that uh was just reviewed today, but we were also able to override the veto of Mayor Fry when we brought this forward last year for passage.

And once again, is because of our dedication to our residents, our dedication towards making our city uh more climate resilient and climate friendly, um, that we're able to consider both measures like this while also recognizing that that's just a starting point.

We have to do more, and our residents are asking us to do more.

And I wish there was more accountability for um the lack of leadership and the issues that we experience in this process, because I will hope that no other council member will have to deal with that as we're trying to be um fully in compliance with what we passed in the climate equity plan.

And I know department staff like yourself who present it, you all have been there supporting us and working with us to do what we can to make that happen, to make that work happen.

So our constituents are seeing the fruits of our seriousness.

So I want to say thank you to the staff in spite of those challenges with working with leadership.

Um you all have approached us with seriousness.

You've brought your expertise forward for us to finally um put some closure on this particular chapter pertaining to carbon fees.

And I know there's a whole list of other pollutants that we need to tackle and adding to uh the pollution control annual registration list.

So I just want to say thank you to our staff, thank you to our residents, and thank you to our colleagues who um took this work serious and refused to stop when we were constantly given um a veto or constantly given a no with no evident reason to keep this work moving forward.

So thank you for this presentation again, and thank you to my colleagues for your work and commitment to making this happen.

Next up, we have Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Chavez, and thank you so much, Ms.

Lansing.

Um, do you have a sense of how many greenhouse gas gas emissions are will be mitigated annually with this new program?

Chair Chavez, Councilmember Cashman.

Uh this week we actually have the industrial outreach specialist starting, um, which we're very excited about.

Um she will begin work immediately, reaching out to all of the facilities that are paying this fee to look for potential uh greenhouse gas emission reduction projects.

Uh I don't at this time have a great estimate on that, um, but I hope that we have a better idea um certainly within you know the next six months to a year as this new industrial outreach specialist begins work and begins getting into all of these facilities to look for these potential projects.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, I know we have a presentation coming up in the climate infrastructure committee next cycle, which will be like our Q3 report about the climate legacy initiative and our progress.

So um planning on asking, you know, the climate equity director, Megan Hoy also, I think it would be important for us to set some goals with reductions because that's ultimately the goal here is actually achieving those emissions reductions and getting more in line with our our climate goals as a city.

Um and then wanted to ask you if we're expecting PCAR to bring in the same amount of funding revenue uh every year, or if that will change in the years to come, what you've outlined.

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um are you talking about PCAR in general or PCAR for CO2 E fee?

I think both.

Both, yeah.

Um I mean, our our PCAR revenue has been increasing year to year.

Um we haven't really seen um a decline in recent years.

Um so I would imagine that it should stay pretty steady with a slight increase.

Um it depends on um the you know the cost of mitigation.

Um this fee in particular, the CO2E fee, we will be re-evaluating it annually.

Um and then, of course, we do um, you know, in line with the city um finance recommendations, we do occasional percent increases across the board for all PCAR fees.

Okay.

Thanks.

And then are there any industries in the PCAR program that are either using or exploring hydrogen or green hydrogen for alternative fuels or fuel switching?

So I know you saw a lot, I saw a lot of like switching to natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel.

So it's not, I mean, yeah, that's more efficient than other types of fuel, but I'm wondering if the green hydrogen has really hit the market as it was intended to with the with the Biden incentives.

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um and part of the reason that we switched and expanded the scope of this from liquid fuel to include also gaseous fuel is so that we can also reduce gaseous fuel and natural gas use.

But as far as um hydrogen, I that would probably be a question better suited for the sustainability team.

Okay, thanks.

And then my last question was who has the discretion to use the money that's coming in.

Is it just for the green cost share program alone and that industrial specialist uh or will it be kind of embedded in our climate legacy initiative funding, which is used for many things?

Uh my understanding is that it'll be uh generally embedded into the climate legacy initiative funding.

Um we have a set amount that goes to the green cost share um program for pollution reduction projects.

Okay.

Thank you so much for the presentation and for all your work on this.

It's it's really great that we we got to this place and that we're able to start rolling this out.

And thank you, uh, Councilmember Wandsey also for your leadership.

Next up, we have councilmember Wandsley.

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on the umquiry you also made council member Cashman regarding the updates of looking at uh revenue generated by PCAR fee, specifically either PCAR, the entire pollutants on that list, in addition to CO2.

Um we do have an outstanding uh directive to the administration for a fee study because we recognize not all departments um or all departments don't have a standardized way in which they're assessing their fees, so we're fully utilizing them, bringing in um maximum revenue that's aligned with what's allowed under state statute to support these programs.

So as you mentioned, the annual uh review, ideally we will have a report back of key departments um or all city departments that do have fees.

We will get an evaluation uh report of all those to see if there have been changes made, if there needs to be amendments brought forward.

Um so I at least wanted to say that's outstanding, and we're working with the administration to bring that report forward too.

All right.

Seeing no further discussion.

I will direct the clerk to receive and file that report.

And colleagues.

Our last portion of the discussion is the item brought forward by councilmember Wansey related to the executive order legislative directive.

This was added to agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

Uh Councilmember Wandsley, would you like to speak on this item?

Yes, I would.

Uh thank you, Chair Chavez.

Um, so this legislative directive essentially asks for a report back on any updates related to the executive order that Mayor Fry passed regarding the consent decree.

Um, I believe back in June.

Um, there was about six items that he included in that directive that issue either directions to the city attorney and his other uh department staff to basically say these are the ways in which we're following up on the consent decree that's now dismissed by the Department of Justice.

Um and there were timelines assigned to uh those provisions, such as 30 days for this, 90 days for that.

Um we have now reached beyond the 90-day point for many of those things, and it would be great for us to get an understanding of how the administration is following up on the consent decree, uh, considering our conversation and uh robust debate back in July around the city attorney's uh position of us not entering into a modified agreement with MDHR to um integrate the consent decree uh provisions in it.

We would love to know what implementation work is happening.

So this legislative directive as for those updates um and for a report to come forward and presentation to come forward to this body um by October 21st.

Thank you.

We have City Attorney Anderson on queue.

Uh thank you uh Mr.

Chair, Council members.

Um so number one, I'm happy to report that the city attorney's office timely complied with all of the requirements under uh the mayor's executive order.

Um very happy to come and do a presentation.

Um I do have a conflict for October 21st, um, which I communicated to uh Councilmember Wandsley's office, not sure if it got to her or not.

Um, but uh wondering if we could if you would be open to uh change of the due date for to November 3rd instead of the 21st.

Thank you, city attorney.

I did get uh the email from my staff.

We figured as what has happened before, you have deputies, maybe you could assign another uh city attorney to come give um the presentation instead on October 21st, because we've received presentations from tons of staff who are working on this specific initiative.

So felt that the 21st felt pretty reasonable in light of that.

I mean, I guess I would just say councilmember, I'm probably in the best position to both do the presentation and answer any questions about it.

So I think I'm the best person to do the presentation if if waiting another I guess it's only another two weeks for the presentation would be acceptable.

Oh, answer I would like to just move it forward.

Is there any other person that wants to get on queue?

Councilmember Rainbow.

Thank you, Chair.

I I just think it's pretty reasonable if the city attorney is gonna be here and she's the expert to give her that extra cycle to come back to us in person so we can answer questions to her directly.

I won't be voting for this.

All right.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

There's people on queue.

Just kidding.

Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

I would also support um moving the date so that our attorney can be there.

Um would propose that amendment if we can add that in.

Go for it.

So there's been a motion and a second to what date?

The third.

November third, committee of the whole meeting.

Yep.

Um, so that's been moved and seconded.

And now the queue is all over the place.

So there's like 20 people with same names.

Linnae, council Paulson.

I'm trying to take myself out of queue.

It wasn't allowing me to get in.

Sorry.

We'll call on you, Councilmember Pomasano.

No, I I apologize.

I was going to say what council member Cashman already did, so I was trying to remove myself from Q and nothing was happening on my screen, but now I've removed myself in all instances.

Uh Councilman Koske.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just like to ask the author, is there um something like time-wise why it would be preferred to have it, this information in October versus the November date.

I am inclined to I seconded the motion for Cashman, so I'm inclined to move it out.

I just was wondering if there was something time sensitive that you wanted.

I will just make sure to be in contact with the chairs to make sure we do have quorum then on the third.

Don't know what people's schedule will look like the day before a major election.

So I want to make sure that all of my colleagues will be here.

I'll work with the chair to make sure that happens.

We have a majority so the whole body can be here and receive the same information.

But yeah.

I it was amendable to the third.

Sounds great.

Thank you.

On queue, so uh council member once you are you okay with the date change?

I'm just trying to get a clarification.

Okay, so you do support the date change.

I guess the only comment that I would have because I put myself on cue is that's like a month away.

I think that if the city attorney just said that this has already been completed and the timelines have been completed, I'm not sure why we don't have access to this information already.

So I guess what I would include, and I'm not sure if there's an amendment before full council after we approve this date, is also making sure that the city council has this information because if it's already completed based on the comments that were made today, why do we as city council members not have this information already?

Um why do we have to wait a whole month to wait on information when it comes to police accountability oversight, making sure that we're following the directive that the mayor made and you know a month is a long time to wait to make sure that police accountability is being followed in the city of Minneapolis.

So those are some concerns that I do have.

So I'm not sure uh councilmember wands, if you want to so I guess based on the comments you made, you support the motion to amend this to talk about the November 3rd timeline.

And I would say that before full council, maybe we can also make an add more language that says that we get this information as soon as possible because I don't think we should be waiting for a whole month to get this information.

Yeah.

We want to we wanted to have it publicly because the public should know what's happening, but we also shouldn't wait for a whole month to get a response on police accountability.

That's just not right.

I'm in Q.

I'm more than happy to respond to that uh amendment that I absolutely would uh be down to bring to you bring alongside you on Thursday to this is one keeping um the October 21st deadline as a way to say we would like to have a receive and foul report um of the existing findings.

That way it could be publicly available.

I would be supportive of that awesome point of clarification it's so on October 21st there would be um a public limbs file that has the information and then the presentation would be two weeks following that.

Yep so there will be a receive and foul on October 21st.

Great thank you all right so why don't we just move this forward without recommendation and then get that finalized language at full council that's okay with everybody here just to make sure we have the the reflected dates the timelines that we talked about in this in this conversation unless there's objection all right so on the motion to move this forward without recommendation all those in favor say aye.

Aye any opposed say nay any abstentions and that is moved to full council without recommendation and we will figure that out as in the next few days.

Okay.

I think that was the last item before we go into closed session the last item we have today is a closed session and before I move to close the meeting I'll recognize Madam City Attorney Anderson to provide the legal basis for the requested closed session.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair the next item on the agenda is the litigation manager matter of United States of America versus State of Minnesota at al 25 CV 0378 your lawyers wish to provide a briefing to the council on this litigation matter.

Accordingly under the Minnesota open meeting law Minnesota statutes section 13 D point oh five subdivision 3b 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 thank you City Attorney Anderson I move that our public meeting be closed as authorized under the provisions of the open meeting law specifically Minnesota statute section 13 D point zero five for the purpose of receiving a briefing on the litigation matter listed on the agenda.

This item is receiving a briefing related to the United States of America versus the state of Minnesota and others.

May I have a second to that motion second second there has been a second all those in favor say aye.

Aye those opposed say nay any abstentions 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 committee of the whole will reconvene in public after we conclude the closed session.

Thank you.

The time is now three.

The whole has reconvened in open session.