Good morning and welcome.

My name is Aurene Chowdhury and I'm the chair of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee.

At this time, I'm going to call to order our regular meeting for Tuesday, November 18th,

2025.

I want to offer a friendly reminder to all committee 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 the 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.

I'll now have the clerk call the roll.

Council Member Payne.

Present.

Wansley.

Present.

Vita.

Present.

Ellison is absent.

Osman is absent.

Cashman is absent.

Jenkins is absent.

Chavez.

Present.

Chukty.

Present.

Kosky is absent.

Palmisano.

Present.

Vice Chair Rainville? Present. And Chair Chowdhury? Present. There are eight members present.

Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. I'll also remind my colleagues that we're using

speaker management today, so please make sure you sign in. We have two items to be received and

filed today, starting with receiving and filing an update related to 2026 legislative policy

positions. We will not be taking formal action on the positions today. We'll be

taking up formal action in the new year as legislative session is later on in

February. So with that I will welcome up a director to PNCA for a presentation on

the policy positions for 2026.

Thank you, Chair Chowdhury and Council Members.

We are going to be providing a presentation today on new items that came through our policy

liaison team process, which is the process we use to seek items from departments across

the city enterprise for consideration for our legislative policy positions.

So I'll call up Ms. Filana here in just a moment to remind you about that process and

then go through the new items that came through that process.

Um, so we are going to be sharing some of those new policy position

recommendations.

We do have a number of staff from city departments here who participated in

that process are in our on hand to answer questions, technical questions, if you

have them.

So we really appreciate them being here and also for participating in the process

that helps shape the city's legislative policy positions.

Uh, after Ms.

Falana and Mr.

Heuser present those new policy position recommendations.

I'm going to walk through a draft 2026 legislative agenda with you, which you have in your packets

and is attached to the LIMS file.

And then after that, we'll move to our second agenda item, which is a federal update.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Filana.

Thank you, Director Tupinka.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Council members.

My name is Indiria Filana, Government Relations Representative with Intergovernmental Relations

Department.

I'm here today to talk a little bit more about PLT and then we'll go into the proposals that we received.

So the policy liaison team, or PLT as we call it, is coordinated by the IGR department annually.

And it's our process in where we, or city staff, evaluate proposed changes for possible inclusion on our legislative policy positions and agenda.

Proposed changes include policy, technical, and language updates.

These changes are brought to us and identified by departments as solutions to existing problems.

So any funding opportunities or existing policies that need to be changed or tweaked or even created in order for city staff to effectively do their work is the purpose of our process.

process. So the policy liaison team is made up of interdepartmental city staff and a few

staff members from each department that's chosen by that department's director is what

makes up the team. So the policy liaison team reviewed proposals and suggested policies

for inclusion. We have ten recommendations to present to you today. And new language

will either be new policy or amendments to current policy. So the 2026 draft agenda policy

positions will be included early next year, I should say, for you all to review and approve.

And then department staff who are a part of PLT are here today to answer questions,

and they're ready to do that at the end of our presentation.

So we will begin with the first one, and I'll pass it off to my colleague, Steve.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Steve Huser.

I'm a senior government relations representative for the city of Minneapolis's IGR department.

So the first proposal that we have comes from the elections office in the city clerk's office.

This proposal would be to add clarifying policy language related to candidate filing and campaign

finance at the municipal level. We would be supplementing the current elections platform

to include statutory support for statutory changes which would promote clarity for the

candidates themselves at the municipal level and the public in candidate filing and campaign

finance reporting. A state law change in 2022 made it so that this responsibility was shifted

from Hennepin County to the city of Minneapolis's elections office. And so what we are looking to

have the state clarify is the state statute that would show what the kind of rules of the road are

for candidates and their campaign finance at the municipal level, adding clarity to that statute

so that when our city elections office is asked, we have a little bit more to go on than what is

currently in state statute. So this was a responsibility for the campaign finance and

the filing that happened at Hennepin County up until 2022 change. This responsibility is now

ours. And so we are looking for the clarity in statute that we no longer is that is no longer

in statute to give to the public. And the next one I will pass off to Ms. Volano.

Thank you, Mr. Huser. Our next item, second item today comes from the city's community planning

and economic development department, also known as CPED. And it's all about revenue generation

through entertainment districts. So the proposal will create an entertainment district that captures

excess revenue and value from the introduction of and permitting of newly

authorized digital outdoor signage. The city has been approached by multiple

media companies seeking to expand allowances for these digital

outdoor advertisements within the warehouse entertainment district.

These funds would be earmarked to fund or enhance the city's public art

initiatives or even public safety improvements and other jurisdictions

nationally like Atlanta, Baltimore, and Denver have adopted such overlay or

district models. So currently state law prevents us from simply charging a fee.

So to do this we would need special legislation to grant us the authority to

generate such revenue. The next proposal comes from our health department within

our sustainability team. This proposal calls for support from the state for

more energy code enforcement resources for both residential and commercial

building codes. So building codes and energy codes are designed to ensure the

efficient use of energy in construction and renovation across the state. In

Minnesota we adopt new building codes every six years and the latest updates

were effective as of 2020 and for energy codes those latest updates were in 2024.

So this proposal or the ask is to secure $500,000 in additional ongoing funding

to embed building science and new technology experts in local

jurisdictions to support user again. Thank you Madam Chair. The next proposal

comes from the CPED department and it is related to cannabis policy. So this

proposal would be supplementing current cannabis and liquor policies to be

updated in four basic ways. One would be to provide express support for a

restoration of the local cannabis aid that was removed from the state budget

bill last legislative session. So this was aid that would have come to cities

and counties from funded by the cannabis tax at the state level. That money and

aid was meant to offset the cost to local governments related to licensure

and other impacts related to legalized cannabis in the state. That having that

removed you know does leave us with limited ability to gather any kind of

revenue based on that work there are still a registration fee that can be

collected by the city related to our registration that we are allowed to

require at the local level so that did not change but the aid that we were

receiving is no longer coming in and so the second change would be to support

any streamlining that the legislature could put into look things like local

site approval process, the building and fire code enforcement, and possibly looking at the 30-day

deadline that is related to that sign-off with the state. This is part of the process that we do with

the Office of Cannabis Management to ensure that when a licensee is applying for a cannabis license

with the state, that they are complying with certain aspects related to local authority,

predominantly zoning and the code enforcement. The third is to support work at the legislature

to look at the impacts of the industry selling, impacts to the industry when licenses are

potentially being sold. So the cannabis license is being transferred from one license holder to

another. This activity is happening and we do think that we've identified

possibly a negative impact of that activity and we would like the

legislature to take a look at that. And the fourth is supporting changes to

employment restrictions for working in the cannabis industry. Currently there

are a lot of jobs or a lot of offenses that people may have had on the record

in the past that would prohibit them from being able to work in the cannabis industry.

Sometimes these offenses are not necessarily related to the work that these individuals

would like to do in the cannabis industry.

We would also support these changes to allow for some level of employer discretion to take

a look at whether the employer can take a look at what the offense was for the individual

looking for employment and whether or not the employer is feeling comfortable with hiring

that person into the job that they would be seeking with that company.

And the next one is also mine.

This comes from the Neighborhood Safety Department and it would be a proposal to make changes

to Chapter 13 data practices law related to violence prevention data.

So currently under Chapter 13, if we have data that is collected through our Minneapolis

group violence intervention and youth GVI programs, that could be participant data,

volunteer data.

That data that we collect that can be personal, so it could be names, addresses, things of

that nature, under the current law would potentially be public if requested.

we would be asking the state to look at is whether or not some of that data could be

made non-public data. The motivation behind this is to ensure that folks that would potentially

be interacting with our programs can feel confident that the data that we are collecting

is safe and protected. And it is our hope then that we would potentially increase the

participation in those programs. And I just realized that the third one on this page is

also mine. So this comes from the Public Works Department. This is the would be

support for a low-income residential water services affordability program at

the state level. So the city would be supporting the creation of this program.

It would be funded through a statewide fee that would be collected on service

connections for both drinking water and wastewater systems. The use of these

These funds would then be used to offset the cost for those who qualify, you know, as a

yet to be determined qualifier for low income for this specific program.

But it would help offset the cost for your drinking water bills, wastewater bills, and

stormwater bills.

We would also, under this proposal, would potentially be supporting an offset where

if the state did not, if a local government did not want to participate in the state program,

could opt out by having a local program as well. So I will pause. Oh wait, I thought it was Ms.

Filana and I see that the next one is also mine. So this proposal also comes from the Public Works

Department. This is supporting, what I would say is this would be making a clarifying change to our

current policy and our legislative policies related to the municipal state

aid local design flexibility standard. So what this would be asking for is under

current law we are a lot as a city above 5,000 the city of Minneapolis is eligible

for municipal stated funding from the state. These funds come from the highway

user tax distribution fund which is predominantly funded through the gas tax.

As part of the restrictions that we have on the use of that money, the city can, we can only use it up for up to 25, 20% of our road system in the city and that these streets have to achieve a certain level of design quality and standard.

Part of that requirement is that our roads or our streets must be designed to the municipal state aid street standard.

These are standards that are developed by local governments with collaboration from the state.

We are restricted to those design standards.

However, there is a variance process that cities can apply for, and that can be for things like speeds, lane width, things of that nature.

What we are looking to change in our policies is to go beyond our current policy, which is just asking the state for flexibility and getting a little bit more specific about what we would be supporting.

So some of those items would be expressing more clearly our support for using some other design standards, such as allowing cities to use the MnDOT design guide or a NACTO urban street design standard.

It would also be asking for, in addition to the variance process, some amendments to that process that would potentially allow for a way to appeal a decision by that variance process.

And I will pass it over to Ms. Flana for the next one.

Thank you again, Mr. Heuser.

So we have another proposal from Public Works coming out of the Solid Waste and Recycling Division.

construction and demolition debris is more than twice the amount of municipal

solid waste however it doesn't factor into municipal solid waste goals so the

amount that's generated is in this is what I meant for the state but doesn't

factor into our local solid waste goals so this proposal asks for any funding

investments and workforce development programs to preserve reuse recycle and

deconstruct those building those building materials there was a task force

in 2019 related to this that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the

MPCA put together and this was a recommendation that came out of that

task force. This next proposal also comes from Solid Waste and Recycling and it

calls for a statewide food disposal ban and this is from landfills and waste to

energy facilities and it would require businesses to generate

large quantities of food such as restaurants and grocery stores to use

organics recycling services.

Diverting edible food for consumption and increased composting of food scraps and food

waste from commercial establishments will help reduce waste and other associated environmental

impacts.

This has been a position that Hennepin County has been calling for for years and I believe

they already have enacted an ordinance.

So this would just be for a statewide food disposal ban.

There was also a bill that the MPCA was pushing a few years ago related to this topic and

we expect them to bring it forward for the upcoming legislative session.

And then the last proposal will be coming from Mr. Heuser.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So the last proposal that we have comes from the Civil Rights Department.

This would be to expand the Minnesota Human Rights Act to include some protected classes

and those are to include justice impacted status,

housing status, and height and weight.

What this ask would be at the state level

is to make the state Human Rights Act

be consistent with a recent city ordinance

that was adopted protecting the same classes

as I've just identified.

One benefit to doing this that the department

had identified would be to provide consistency

across the state.

There have been recent lawsuits related to the protection for those who are using

things like section eight housing vouchers that was upheld.

And so if we were to incorporate this into the Minnesota human rights act, it

would add a little bit more of a boost to the legal defense of these

protection protected statuses.

Pass it off to Katie or Mr.

Pinka.

Thank you.

So those are the items that came through the policy liaison team process.

And just as a reminder for how our process then works.

So we have our longer legislative policy positions document that we bring to you each year.

We're not starting from scratch, so things that are on there already will largely stay unless perhaps they were acted on during the last legislative session.

session, then you may see those come off.

So when we come for your first cycle in the new year, we will bring an edited

document, legislative policy positions document that reflects these items through

the PLT process and then any cleanup or things that we need to do for your

consideration.

And then we also bring forward a legislative agenda that I'll talk through

in a moment, but maybe I can pause here just to see if there were questions

about those policy items that came through the PLT process.

Members, does anyone have any questions on the presentation?

Council President Payne.

Thank you, Chair Chowdhury.

I was curious if any of our state lawmakers

are talking about the impact of the federal ban

on hemp-derived THC.

I know that people are famously frustrated

with how slow the rollout of recreational THC is

in Minnesota, but that rollout

is intentional to balance safety and access, right?

And I feel like this is putting a wrench into that process.

Is there any talk of any changes that might need to happen

at the state to be responsive to these federal changes?

I'll let Mr. Huser take that one.

Madam Chair, Council President, yeah, it's a good question.

I'm not aware of anything very specific.

However, I think that this happened somewhat suddenly

without much heads up. It's still a rather new thing that I think we don't need, I think

we've got what about a week into this new reality. So I think there's still some wrapping

our minds around it. I think one thing that they will need to look at is that the current

state law for low-dose hemp is tied to that federal definition and makes an assumption

about that working forward. So the state law was written in a way to work with the old

federal law and definition about that. So I think the legislature would have to take

a look at how because this is impacting you know they're likely would be need

some they should would likely consider changes to how they've set up the low

dose hemp statute there is some time due to the fact that the the federal hemp

definition change has a year before it's effective so there is some time to

either change the federal law in some way that is it maybe not all the way

back to the way it was but at least some version of it that would not negatively

impact than this current state law. Even if they do that, there's the potential that if there was

other additional federal regulation that was included in any change, we would have to take a

look at what those are, how that interacts then with the state statute. So I do think that people

are both at the local level, you know, the business community, those businesses that are impacted,

are taking a look at their impacts. I can say that I'm aware that there's some work at our city

level to take a look at what this means for the businesses that are operating in the city.

And then we're continuing to work with federal and state partners to get a better handle on what exactly the change is.

Thank you.

Next, I'll recognize Council Member Wansley.

Thank you, Chair Chaudhry.

Also, thank you, staff, for updates.

I just have a couple comments to share.

And I definitely look forward to collaborating with you all and our Minneapolis delegation members

on advancing a number of priorities that we'll continue discussing going into the early new year.

But I at least wanted to share a couple based off of presentations that I've held

in collaboration with my colleagues here where we've invited other external stakeholders

and also meetings that I've had with my own constituents around some clear priorities

that I'm bringing forward early next year.

So the first one is one that we've actually discussed in the Public Health and Safety Committee,

which is an investment in the non-fatal task force, which is something that was on the docket for consideration by the legislature last session, but did not move forward.

But just a little bit of context on that non-fatal task force or sorry, non-fatal shooting task forces are a model that acknowledges that not every non-fatal shooting could have been fatal.

But it's important that we do direct investigative resources towards closing those cases.

and they've shown particularly this model to be extremely effective in preventing more shootings

and also bringing down overall gun violence rates and this is happening right across the river in

St. Paul specifically St. Paul and Ramsey County have already implemented this model using their

own existing resources and used as a baseline for statewide advocacy this past session and again

came to the public health and safety committee and I encourage my colleagues to check out that

presentation. Very interesting when we can get a presentation that includes also quote-unquote

center or liberal leaders and also the Center for the American Experiment. All clapping together

saying this model is something that everyone should adopt. So we received a really good

presentation from there and seeing just the success that Ramsey County has experienced in

increasing its clearance rates, I believe up to 75% of shootings there. I think Minneapolis

residents also deserve that same level of seriousness and investment in public safety

strategies that collectively make our community safer. And again, if I'm bringing this also as a

budget amendment, I would love to see the state's two largest cities who are championing this work

also be used as a leverage point, just like we saw with the human rights expansion priority

to have it be leveraged to also inspire and influence statewide action.

The other two priorities that I'm going to be bringing forward are related to my ward,

Ward 2 specifically.

One is to extend the University of Minnesota's Good Neighbor Fund for another 20 years

with a new focus on food security and grocery stores.

The Good Neighbor Fund is a community grant program that is supported by the University Endowment

and is administered by the University of Minnesota.

and it gives small grants to support community initiatives

and basically in the broader university area,

ranging from public safety to arts to culture

and other economic development issues.

The Good Neighbor Fund was chartered at the state legislature back in 2007

and is currently scheduled to sunset after 20 years.

But many conversations that I've had with leaders in that area,

they've made it loud and clear that they would like to see

that asset be sustained for another 20 years and want to see it be extended.

And I would love to work with our staff and state leaders on looking at how do we extend that for another 20 years

with, again, a specific focus on addressing food insecurity and access within that area.

And then lastly, the other priority is dinky after dark phase two.

Many of my colleagues know through the budget process we funded the first phase of installing pedestrian lighting around the university area, specifically in the Dinkytown area, to ensure that, again, students, residents, tourists, visitors, whomever it may be, could get around the area feeling safer.

And it's very clear.

It's an additional price tag that's coupled with the $500,000 investment that this body made towards it.

And we've heard lots of positive feedback from students, from university communities around the area of how that has helped to improve safety conditions over there.

So we want to continue building upon that and then working with our partners to then look at building the phase out of that to include more areas around Dinkytown.

There's already a pedestrian lighting corridor ordinance that gives an overlay of what that could look like for that area.

So I would love to see some state dollars be allocated towards that project as the city has also stepped up in that aspect and have been in conversations with leaders saying, okay, we did our bit.

It's a shared group project.

Other folks can bring money to the table as well.

So again, I look forward to having future conversations around these three

priorities that I named and wanted to give a heads up that I'll be bringing

them forward in early January.

Thank you.

I'll recognize that Council Member Osmond and Council Member Cashman have

joined the meeting.

And I put myself in queue to kind of just speak a little bit to looking ahead

into next year I think Councilmember Wansley I'll use you as a model now is a

good time to start having conversations with myself and then

director to pinka for us to really talk about what our legislative items that

members want to bring forward into the new year and what priorities look like

wanted to create an opportunity for the new members next year that will be

joining the council to get an introduction to the IGR team since we do

have a little bit more time before legislative session but now is a really great time to have

the conversation and also just understanding typically we we do our legislative agenda at

the end of the year but our agenda at the end of the year is extremely packed so we are just

shifting it to the top of the year um so if you have ideas similar to council member wansley that

you want to share with me and Council Director Topinka that would be great.

I did have just one question and more just like an opportunity to share a

little bit further detail with the body. So currently we are taking up the signs

ordinance in the business housing and zoning committee and a lot of the

thinking around that ordinance in terms of off-premises signs the increase of

those signs and then the digitization, there we go, the digitization of those signs are looking at

a pause or a prohibition for some time for specifically this revenue generation aspect.

And I was wondering if we could have someone just kind of speak to the relationship to the

policymaking decision that we're having right now and this legislative item.

Thanks, Chair Chowdhury.

I will start and then call up some folks from CPED if they want to fill in.

So I know there's a lot of different components to the policy that's going through Biz Committee,

and I'm not an expert on all of those.

But one piece of it and one idea that has come up is this concept of,

as seen in some other cities, Denver and a couple others that Ms. Falana mentioned,

And there are cities that have had where for allowing a new sign in a certain district where there's an overlay, there is a fee that's associated with that.

And then that fee can go in to pay for things like public art or lighting or other improvements in an area.

We would need to be able to charge a fee or to do a district like that.

We would need legislative authorization because we don't currently have the authority to do that.

Um, we have looked at some, uh, models of what that could look like.

Um, it's probably something similar to an, uh, an improvement district of some kind where

you have a certain district where we would be allowed to charge that fee, but that is

something we would need legislative approval for.

Um, and so, um, that's why you see that reflected here.

Um, and then have heard that in those conversations that are going through biz.

You know, we're pretty early in starting to talk with other cities about this.

I think there is some interest, but it is something that, you know, could, will take some effort, I think, to move forward at the legislature.

And so we'll have to have a lot of different conversations and figure out the right way to move that forward.

I'll turn it over to Sarah Milner.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Chowdhury, committee members.

My name is Sarah Milner.

I'm the policy research and outreach manager in CPED.

So I will just echo what Director Topinka said and also offer if there's any additional

questions or discussions you all would like to have, we're happy to offer any kind of

briefing or further conversation on how these two pieces connect to each other.

Thank you.

Really appreciate it.

And I'll just make some comments on that.

item. I think there, our staff is working on this phase one of the signs ordinance related to the

digital off-premises and then the goal is to go into a phase two and there seems to be a lot of

shared commitment to go into a phase two to talk about off-premises signs and turning them into

digital science. I think this should be something that we really, really prioritize pushing through

the legislature this year, especially because we're in a moment where we need as much

revenue generation tools as possible. And this creates an opportunity for us to have it. One

thing that I will note, and I think it'll be a suggestion to our AGR team, is while I appreciate

we're going in and focus on like an arts and safety dedication I I think it would

be wise to kind of expand before we limit ourselves to that I mean I'm

interested in it being able to go to the general fund or being able to support

initiatives throughout the city of Minneapolis and commercial corridors

corridors that need extra vibrancy, especially if we're going to see a large increase of digital

signs or new billboard signs. We're letting go of this old credit system that allowed for

essentially a monopoly in our city of who gets to hold billboards and own them and profit. And so

I see a future of really large expansion. And if we're going to create an opportunity for

advertisement and we're going to be able to collect revenue. I think our city, parts of our city that have been under invested in for decades deserve to have an in into that funding because everybody, everybody goes into those areas and views those signs and participates. And so I would like for us to consider a more equitable way to share that revenue throughout the city of Minneapolis.

With that, I am not seeing any further discussion, so I will ask the clerk to receive and file that presentation.

And now, members, the last item we have is receiving and filing our favorite part,

which is an update on the federal and state actions affecting the city of Minneapolis.

I'll invite Director Topinka again to brief us on this item,

and then I believe Lauren Olson will also be helping with this presentation.

We'll just welcome Lauren Olson up.

Oh, thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone, or is it still morning?

Anyway, nice to see you all, Madam Chair, council members.

Good to be here.

I'm Lauren Olson, senior government relations representative, and I am here to give you a

brief federal update.

We will cover the conclusion to the shutdown and just a couple other items.

And for anyone who wasn't fully following the discussion about hemp at the federal level,

we will go back to that.

And Steve will talk a little bit more about that issue.

All right.

All right, well, I think everybody is aware that the 43-day shutdown finally came to an

end on November 12th.

That was the longest shutdown in United States history.

The resolution of the issue was that some of the federal government is just funded through

January 30th and then there are a few areas that are funded through September 30th, 2026, which

would be the normal fiscal year. So there are still nine bills out there that Congress needs

to continue to work on and come to an agreement by January 30th. If not, we risk that there could be

another shutdown potentially, but there were a few bills that did get passed for the fiscal year,

and those bills, which included the USDA or egg bill, included SNAP funding and WIC funding

at, I believe, 2025 enacted levels. So that provides stability for those programs, which is

good and they will not be a part of the dynamics that would affect the January 30th deadline.

So those are funded, which is nice.

The Department of Veterans Affairs and Military Construction were also amongst the bills that

were funded and also ongoing funding for the legislative branch, so for Congress and their

staff.

There were some additional things included in this bill besides the ongoing funding.

For example, there was a commitment to reimburse states for funds that they used to carry out

federal programs during the shutdown that's generally presumed to include any expenditures

related to SNAP.

It directs that layoffs that occurred during the shutdown be reversed and also that furloughed

employees received back pay which became something, an issue of debate even though I think there

was actually a law to that effect anyway but the agreement makes clear that those

furloughed employees would receive back pay we are we have been watching this

issue with layoffs because there have been some layoffs within health within

the office of population affairs specifically which is a part of the

government that works facilitates some of our programming that we provide at

school-based clinics for teen pregnancy prevention, for example.

And there was such significant layoffs that occurred during the shutdown that we were

really worried about the ability to even, like, continue to administer these services.

So I think we continue to wait and see if those jobs are restored.

So that's a positive thing.

thing is that the agreement prohibits any other mass layoffs through the end

of the year for what that's worth it also ensures ongoing funding for the

government accountability office which is good because that office allows

Congress to keep tabs on how the administration is handling the

appropriations that receives and helps them get good nonpartisan information

and there was some threats that some people did not support funding for that

office so that is positive as you know a major issue that of discussion during

the shutdown of course was hopes to extend the enhanced affordable care act

tax credits and as you know that did not happen Senate Majority Leader Thune

committed to having a vote on this topic in December so we can kind of await

more details on that and then I will call up mr. Huser on this item there was a

and there were a couple issues that came up in this the shutdown bill that were

kind of came as a surprise to people to a lot of people and one of them related

to prohibiting the sale of products that include THC.

And I'll let Steve talk about the details,

and then I'll just wrap up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So, yeah, so as I mentioned earlier,

or as was mentioned earlier,

there was a change to the federal hemp definition.

Without getting too far into the weeds of that,

the basics are that the most impactful change

was they lowered the amount of THC

that is allowable within hemp products to a point where these products that are being made,

and the products we're talking about are things like hemp edibles, THC edibles, low-dose,

beverages, things like lotion, possibly like textiles, things that use hemp in all of its

different forms and different components of hemp are now impacted because that level is reduced

very low. What this impacts then is what and how these products can be

manufactured with hemp-derived THC and CBD. So what was able to happen prior to

this definition and what can happen for the next year until this is fully

implemented is that the big thing is being able to move product across state

lines as well as access to finance and banking. So for an example when a if some

sort of a hemp edible is using the THC that is derived from hemp so that

pulling the there is a process by which to pull THC out of hemp you know those

those are input products that can go into other products like edibles gummies

beverage THC beverages so that product can be moved across state lines to then

be manufactured in one state and then that more, you know, that product then under the

federal, old federal definition could then be sold in other states as well.

So a beverage that was potentially made in Minnesota could then be sold in a state like

Wisconsin.

After this is in full effect, that would no longer be legal under federal law.

What would stay in place in Minnesota is the state cannabis law.

So any product that is made under Minnesota statute, you know, for cannabis licensing

and production would still remain legal in Minnesota.

It's the question of whether that, so under this, with the federal law definition being changed,

those hemp-derived THC products that are currently legal would not then be able

to be sold across state lines.

Further, the Minnesota businesses that are creating these products now have,

if they are THC, hemp-derived THC products, low-dose, they can have access to some financing,

assurance, and banking systems. Without that, when this is in full effect, those businesses would not

have access to that. And so they would have to operate the same as the new Minnesota legal

cannabis market would have to, which is more of a, I guess you could say, cash-based or bankless

type of a financing system. Like I said earlier, this goes into effect in one year from enactment.

So there will be opportunities over the year. I'm aware that there are groups that are working

with federal legislators to make this change, either revert back to the old definition or make

some sort of a variation of that that allows for the sale of these products. So I think I'll just

pause there and see if there's any questions. I think we might have some folks, some other staff

here that might be able to answer some technical questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions on this portion of it? Okay. Council Member Paul

Masano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Huser, can you expand on what you said earlier about how the

state legislature could possibly address this through our current low-dose hemp ordinance,

or is there a creative way to amend our statute so that the ban wouldn't limit the impact locally?

Madam Chair, Council Member Paul Massano, I am not aware of a way in which the state of Minnesota

would be able to change their state laws to get over the interstate commerce part of the impact.

So there's nothing that could be changed, in my understanding, and I want to say I'm not an

attorney, but my understanding is there's nothing that can be changed in Minnesota law that would

preempt federal law. So we can only change state law and only have it apply within Minnesota.

That being said, there will likely be a look at how, because the way in which low-dose THC hemp-derived state law was written, it was written with the assumption of this federal definition that allowed for these products to be made and sold across state lines.

So that would need to be looked at to see if there are changes there that would at least provide a different level of assurance for these companies that would be working within a Minnesota-only reality.

My very quick and crude understanding of the industry is that that would still be difficult.

A lot of the things that they have done, the financing, the business models that they've developed within the industry, are premised on the legality at the federal level.

So I think it would be, while the state could maybe smooth over some of those hurdles that they're now facing, it would be difficult because of the loss of markets beyond the state of Minnesota.

It would be hard to smooth that over within state law, if I'm being clear about that.

Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And sorry to make you kind of think out loud here creatively, but I think we're all just, you know, that came as a bit of a surprise.

and we have a lot of local business owners that have invested pretty heavily in this

and small distilleries and that.

And so I'm just trying to see how we might find a way through it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

I'm not seeing any further questions.

By the way, it is Mr. Huser's birthday, so happy birthday.

Happy birthday.

Happy birthday.

Yeah.

I'll just conclude here.

So back to the overall federal budget.

So as I noted, you know, there are nine appropriation bills that are not, that have not been passed for the next fiscal year.

So, again, either they can come to an agreement and adopt a budget by January 30th,

or they can use the continuing resolution again, of course, which is always an option as well.

There are still some earmarked projects that have potential in this process, including the one earmarked proposal from the city that survived to this point is $250,000 for Logan Park rail crossing projects to improve the safety of everyone interacting with the rail crossing in that area.

we did ask for I think about 1.8 million so that would have been nice but the amount that is in

the bill currently is 250,000 which we will be very grateful for also and then I guess finally

I think I'd be remiss not to acknowledge that the that one item that's had a lot of conversation in

Congress is the Epstein files and there will be a vote is expected on that today around two o'clock

So as you know, there was a discharge petition where if a majority, a simple majority of Congress agrees,

they can kind of compel that an item is brought to the House floor.

And that petition finally got a final signature from the new member from Arizona who finally got sworn in after the shutdown ended.

So today there will be the vote in the House.

And then, like any bill, it will go to the Senate and also requires the president's signature.

And then you may also be aware that the president has most recently stated that he supports releasing the file.

So we'll see how this unfolds, starting with today's chapter in that story.

So are there any questions for us about the federal budget?

I am not seeing any questions, so thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

So I'll ask the clerk to file or receive and file that presentation.

And with that, members, we have completed all business to come before us,

and the committee today is adjourned without any objection.

Thank you.

Thank you.