All right, good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Robin Winsley, and I am the chair of the Administration and Enterprise Oversight Committee,

and I'm going to call to order our regular committee meeting for today, December 1st, 2025.

Before we begin, though, I do 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 that all speakers moderate the speed and the clarity of their comments.

And with that, I will ask the clerks to call a roll.

Council Member Payne.

Present.

Vita.

Present.

Cashman.

Present.

Chogtai is absent.

Vice Chair Palmisano.

Present.

Chair Wansley.

Present.

That is five members present.

Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum.

I'll also remind my colleagues that we'll be using speaker management today, so please

make sure to sign in or let the clerks know if you need assistance.

Also today is the last AO meeting of the term.

Yay for us.

note that we have also, as a result of this, a very long impact agenda, including some topics

for closed session. In order to manage this agenda, we'll need to stay focused on managing

our time together. And it's my goal with that in consideration that we would get to our security

briefing by 3 p.m., also within our closed session time frame. The clerks will be helping

us monitor our time and I'll provide helpful reminders as needed throughout our meeting as well.

Before we move on to our publishing agenda, I do have a proposed addition to it, which is approving

a bid for Nicolette Ave Bridge over Minnehaha Creek Rehabilitation Project. There are copies

in front of us if you would like to take a look at it and specifically copies of the request for

Council action. If we added this to the agenda, it would become item number 53. That said,

is there any discussion on including item 53 on the consent agenda?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. All right. The ayes have

it and that motion carries and the agenda is amended. That said, we're going to start off

with the public hearing specifically item number one is a payroll update ordinance

i will ask payroll director tammy hoff to come forward and speak on this item

good afternoon council members so this ordinance updates modernizes and clarifies the city's

payroll, holiday, and related personnel code provisions to align with current administrative

processes, state law requirements, and then just language standards. The existing code has remained

largely unchanged since the 1980s. Over time, updates to technology, labor agreements, and

statutory requirements have made portions of the code outdated or inconsistent with our current

practice. Key changes are really modernizing of payroll processing and payment methods.

The language is updated to reflect our current practice, which is paying employees by electronic

funds transfer rather than paper checks. Aligning our state pension statutes,

which is referring to state law governing pension deductions for police, fire,

and general plan participants.

They've been clarified, and payment methods have been updated to electronic transfer.

We've included Juneteenth as a recognized city holiday,

and then just general cleanup and reorganization.

So these revisions ensure that the city's payroll and personnel provisions are accurate,

accessible, and reflective of our employment and financial management practices.

The ordinance does not introduce any new fiscal impacts, but just codifies the current administration procedures.

That's all I got.

Thank you for that presentation, Director Hoff.

I will now open the public hearing for this item.

Is there anyone here to speak on it?

I'm seeing no's from our clerks.

All right, then.

Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will now close the public hearing.

Is there any discussion from committee members?

I see Council Member Cashman in queue.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to thank you so much, Director, for your work on this,

and I'll move the ordinance amendment for approval.

All right.

The item has been motion for approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

It's been seconded.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay.

All right.

The ayes have it.

And that motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Second item that we have is the Civil Service Commission appointment of Anthony Kelly for

seat one beginning March 1st, 2025 and ending February 28th of 2028.

I will now ask Director Nikki Odom to speak on this item.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair, Council Members, my name is Nikki Odom.

I'm the Chief Human Resources Officer

for the City of Minneapolis.

I would like to provide some quick background

on the Civil Service Commission and the appointment process.

The Minneapolis Civil Service Commission

is an independent three-member commission

that is authorized by the city's charter.

It oversees the city's employment practices,

including hiring, promotion, discipline,

and discharge for certain city employees.

The Commission promulgates rules that cover all aspects of employment.

The Commission hears appeals from the employees who believe that the rules have been unfairly

applied to them, and hears appeals from employees who have been recommended for discharge from

their positions or who have been recommended for suspension of 30 calendar days or more.

As I understand it, this arrangement was established to ensure that the application and enforcement

of employment rules at the city were not political,

but were based solely on merit

and objective evaluation measures.

The commission is a neutral body,

advocating neither the interests of the employees

nor for the city.

The city charter requires that three civil service

commissioners be residents of the city of Minneapolis,

that they favor merit, efficiency,

and affirmative action in public service,

and that they hold no other office or employment

under the federal, state, municipal, or any other government, or any department, agency,

court, or political subdivision of any such government. Historically, but not uniformly,

the commissioner appointments have typically been made with one commissioner having human

resources background, one having a legal background, and the other having the third having a labor

background. Each commissioner serves a three-year term. In accordance with past practice, at

conclusion of the commissioner's terms the vacancies were posted according to the current

process for advertising vacancies for boards and commissions in the city applications were screened

for minneapolis residents and professional qualifications relative knowledge of employment

practice and labor or management issues as well as a commitment to fairness neutrality and

affirmative action in line with the requirements of the city charter i can with confidence state

that Anthony Kelly has consistently demonstrated his expertise, qualifications, and unwavering

neutrality in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted by him by our city's charter.

His experience and deep understanding of our city's unique challenges and his challenges

as a highly unionized organization ensures that he meets and often exceeds the criteria

set forth in the charter.

He has upheld the principles of fairness, integrity, and transparency in every decision he's made,

helping to maintain the public's trust in our civil service system.

Reappointing Commissioner Kelly will provide continuity and stability,

allowing him to build on the progress already made

and continue serving the best interests of our employees and thereby the community.

I respectfully urge you to support his reappointment

and allow him to continue his valuable work on behalf of the city of Minneapolis.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Director Odom, for the presentation.

And I will also open this public hearing on this particular item,

seeing if there's anyone here to speak.

All right, clerk saying no.

All right, well, let's close that public hearing.

Is there anyone on the committee side who would like to speak?

and I'm seeing you by Chair Pomisano.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to thank Mr. Kelly, who I don't see in the audience.

I don't see Mr. Kelly here, but I just want to thank him for his work and his service.

I think he's been doing this longer than I have been doing my job,

and I'll go ahead and recommend this for approval.

All right.

So the item has been motioned for approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

The item has been seconded.

So all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. And that motion carries.

That said, all right, we get to move to the very substantial consent agenda.

There are items starting from 3 to 46.

So number three is a gift acceptance from Communities First Infrastructure Alliance for Travel and Lodging Expenses.

Four is a gift acceptance from the National Association of County and City Health Officials of Registration, Transportation, Lodging, and Appropriate Meals and Incidentals.

Five is a bid for Hearthstone Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction Project.

Six is a bid for 16th Avenue South Sewer Improvement Project.

Seven is a bid for Jerry Hoff Parking Ramp Roof Replacement Project.

Eight is a bid for the Fridley and Columbian Heights Water Plant Landscape Restoration Projects.

Nine is a contract with Ameri National Community Services, LLC,

for loan portfolio management and loan development services.

Ten is a contract with FVB Energy, Inc. for a Minneapolis thermal potential study.

Eleven is a contract amendment with Variant Americas, Inc. for the 311 Lagoon System.

12 is a contract with Amy Moser Consulting, LLC, for training and technical assistance for the Blueprint Approve Institute.

13 is a contract with Primacy Strategy Group, LLC, for legislative representation services.

14 is contract amendments with Fredrickson Government Relations, LLC, and Momentum Advocacy for legislative representation services.

15 is contract with Harrison Neighborhood Association for anti-displacement services to Harrison Neighborhood residents.

16 is contract with Impact Mailing of Minnesota Inc. for utility billing mailing services.

17 is contract with Solution Guidance Corporation for project management software.

18 is contract with Clay Consulting LLC for occupational health services.

19 is contract with TAS Unlimited Inc. to administer the city's low barrier employment program.

20 is a contract amendment with IPT LLC to complete parking permit platform migration.

21 is a contract amendment with TISAC Concrete LLC for upgrades of Shingle Creek West Americans with Disabilities Act pedestrian ramps.

22 is contract amendment with Restoration and Construction Services, LLC, for the Hilton

Ramp Waterproofing Project.

23 is a contract amendment with M&B Services, LLC, for Lead Service Line Replacement Project.

24 is a contract amendment with Moorcon Construction, Inc. for Harthorn Office Buildout Project.

25 is contract amendment with JL Theus, Inc. for the Biochar Production Facility Phase 1 project.

26 is contract amendment with Safety Science LLC for rental of traffic control devices.

27 is a contract amendment with the Standard for Life Insurance, Long-Term Disability Insurance, and FMLA Administration Services.

28 is contract amendment with premier electrical corporation for electrical services.

29 is contract amendment with Minnesota native landscapes,

Inc for the green stormwater infrastructure restoration project.

30 is contract amendment with immigrants law center of Minnesota offering free

immigration legal services to residents.

31 is contract amendment with Collins brothers,

towing of St. Cloud, Inc. for heavy-duty towing services.

32 is contract amendment with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for cloud-based patrol car evidence capture

and digital evidence management system.

33 is a contract amendment with Shaw Longquist Associates, Inc. for the City Hall Restack

Phase 3 project.

34 is contract amendment with various entities to provide computer-aided dispatch and related

mobile equipment support services. 35 is contract amendment with Short Elliott Henderson, Inc.

for engineering and design services of the Logan Park Industrial Reconstruction Project.

36 is contract amendments with various organizations for partnership engagement fund

projects. 37 is contract amendment with Keystone Compensation Group, LLC, for classification and

Compensation Consulting Services.

38 is Contract Amendment with Metropolitan Emergency Services Board.

39 is Collective Bargaining Agreement, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 70 AFL-CIO.

40 is a Memorandum of Understanding with Greater Twin Cities United Way 211.

41 is a Legal Settlement, Natalia Padgett v. City of Minneapolis and Mitchell Erickson.

32 is a legal settlement State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, V City of Minneapolis.

43 is a legal settlement workers' compensation claim of William Palmer.

44 is staff purchasing letters and joint purchases report 2025.

45 is Minneapolis Advisory Committee on Aging Appointments.

46 is designation of polling locations for 2026.

And then as we amended the agenda earlier to include item 53, which is a bid for Nicolette Ave Bridge over Minnehaha Creek Rehabilitation Project.

Lord Jesus, that was a lot.

So that said, I am moving these items forward for consideration, checking the queue to see if any of my colleagues have any questions on the items.

And I will be pulling item 43 forward for a separate vote.

All right.

All right.

No one in queue.

Great.

I will move approval of the consent agenda items 3 through 46.

Wait, no.

3 through.

Yes.

40 yeah 46 also inclusive of 53 but not including item 43.

that said all those in favor say aye aye those opposed say nay all right the ayes have it

um and those items move forward um i would like to call a roll call vote on item 43.

council member pain aye vita aye cashman aye

vice chair pomosano aye chair wansley nay that is four eyes and one nay all right that item

carries. Thank you. And then our first discussion item, which would be item number 47, which is a

contract with the link for human trafficking advocacy training and survivor support services.

I will invite Neighborhood Safety Director Amanda Harriton to come and speak on this item.

Good afternoon, Chair Wansley, Councilmembers.

My name is Amanda Harrington.

I'm the Director of Neighborhood Safety Department.

I'm joined by Christina Dowling, Senior Project Manager in the Office of Community Safety,

who's actually going to get us started on this collaborative presentation.

Thank you, Dr. Harrington.

Good afternoon, Chair Wansley and Councilmembers.

I'm Christina Dowling, Senior Project Manager

in the Office of Community Safety.

Here alongside Director Harrington

to talk about the human trafficking RFP

for services in the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center.

As part of the initiative to create a safer ecosystem,

which is a network of organizations, services,

and programs that come together to address

the causes of crime and safety issues in the community,

with the ultimate goal of fostering

a safe and thriving community.

One of the ways in which we are doing this

is by having services that address prevention,

response, and restoration

at the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center.

After visiting many potential sites

at the City for the Center on November 2nd, 2023,

City Council and the Mayor authorized the purchase

of 2633 Minnehaha Avenue and passed a resolution

that the Center will include both community safety services

and police functions.

During the 2023 budget process,

$4 million was set aside for pilot programs,

which Director Harrington will address later

in this presentation.

And one of the pilots will be services related

to human trafficking that I will get to in the next slide.

With this space serving as a hub for both police functions

and community services and resources to come together,

the vision for this space is really a space

where people can walk in, are greeted by

safety center agents, excuse me,

who can direct individuals to services in the building,

in the community, or if needed, speak to an officer.

Next slide, thank you.

Moving on to community engagement,

OCS staff reviewed about 30 reports

from past community events.

Some of the events were initiated by the city,

while others were initiated by neighborhood groups

or nonprofits.

Some of the engagements were not specific

to South Minneapolis and didn't involve just people

who live, work, or play within South Minneapolis.

However, there were consistent themes that emerged

from the engagement about safety services

and physical space.

The themes from these prior engagements helped OCS staff

develop a list of social services and resources

for community members to provide their feedback on

to help us shape the services

at the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center.

From March to May 2024, OCS staff did a series

of community engagement events,

which totaled about 2,000 community engagements,

which included three street walking engagements,

where OCS staff partnered with crime prevention specialists

and NCR staff to walk along Franklin Avenue

and Lake Street, capturing real-time in-person feedback

on services and resources people would like to see

at the center.

40 community in-person community engagement events,

excuse me, OCS staff partnered with NCR

to design, plan, and attend the events,

some of which include engagements

with the African American community,

immigrant community, Native American community, older adults, unhoused, LGBTQIA+, and youth.

Three food shelf events where OCS staff partner with NCR again.

One online survey that ran from May 6th to May 24th with the promotion of the survey

on cultural media shows and at events and one virtual event.

Based upon community feedback, the top social services and resources for the South Minneapolis

Community Safety Center include affordable housing, mental health, substance use disorder,

on sheltered homeless resources, youth, space for community meals, community meeting space,

child care for those utilizing the services in the center, medical services and legal services.

Themes that emerged were not on the list from community members to select,

included services for domestic violence, human trafficking, and culturally specific navigators.

When the center opens, our phase one services and resources available will be culturally specific navigators,

mental health services, youth services, domestic violence services, and human trafficking services,

with other services to be engaged and planned for in later years.

One thing I do want to note is that regarding human trafficking,

in addition to what community members asked for during OCS's engagement events,

in 2018, community engagement was done for the city's framework for action

addressing human trafficking and exploitation in Minneapolis.

At that event, there was a request for an investment in human trafficking services and programming.

I will now turn it back over to Director Harrington,

who will talk more about the pilots.

Thank you, as noted, $4 million was allocated

in public safety aid that was put in the Finance

and Property Services Department

until it was needed to be activated.

Since then, some of that money was used

so that $2,350,000 remains of that original

public safety aid set aside for pilots

in the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center.

The Office of Community Safety has budgeted that money

to ensure that all phase one services are funded,

and the chart that you can see shows approximately

how much is budgeted for each of those phase one service areas

so that it does total the remaining $2,350,000

of public safety aid.

That includes the $500,000 that we are asking today

to be allocated to the human trafficking prevention

and intervention contract with the LINC.

The Office of Community Safety and Neighborhood Safety Departments worked together using the expertise and wisdom of Sunu Shrethsa,

the Senior Advisor on Human Trafficking and Exploitation Prevention Initiative,

to determine what services made sense in connection with the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center.

The services in this contract include support for survivors, which will mean having staff available at the safety center,

as well as doing outreach and training for both professionals and the community related to human trafficking

and safety. There is an expectation of collaboration with other service providers at the center.

We're asking your permission to enter into a contract with the link for these services with

a not-to-exceed amount of $500,000. The services would start when the safety center opens in 2026.

We want to enter the contract now because this ensures there is no delay in opening the center

due to services being in place. OCS has always promised that the center would open with services

related to prevention, response, and restoration.

This service fits both in prevention and restoration,

although, as I mentioned,

there will be other services in the center as well.

That concludes our presentation.

We are available for questions.

Thank you, Director Harrington,

and also thank you, Christina, as well,

for joining the presentation.

I do have myself in queue,

and then next up, Council Member Cashman.

I just wanted to first get clarity

that this contract was originally attended

or that the mayor originally proposed to give to our rescue, correct?

And now that's being switched to the link.

Chair Wansley, there has been no formal request before this body

to approve a contract for this RFP.

This is the first request that has been brought

for this particular contract.

I cannot go into all of the details about the RFP process

because we haven't fully executed this process yet.

That remains confidential.

Right.

I think that's where I'm trying to get clarity

because originally we learned that services were supposed to be provided

at the community safety center within the human trafficking kind of scope of things,

but originally it was being proposed to be extended to our rescue,

and it did not come through a RFP process.

That's why we're having one today.

So I just wanted to get clarity that originally there was a different vendor considered potentially to provide these services.

I can say, Councilman Chair Wonsley, that there was two RFPs.

The first RFP, as you noted, did not come before this body.

I can't say who was awarded that contract because the RFP process is still open until the contract is fully executed.

There is a legislative directive asking us to detail all of that, which we will do as soon as this contract is executed.

And the link is officially who we're going to contract with, assuming approval from this body.

Thank you for flagging the legislative directive.

From my understanding, I think it did come forward because of concerns around the original proposal for our rescue,

administering human trafficking services at this site,

which I think there's been lots of debate amongst this body around how that was a highly problematic organization

and raised lots of red flags around why would we be entering a partnership in regards to doing this critical service with them.

So I'm very much looking forward to the outcomes of that directive and hopefully to hear what lessons,

what process improvements the administration or OCS also learned as a result from that process.

I'm also curious to know where will this service physically be placed in the Community Safety Center?

I know the last update you provided to the Public Health and Safety Committee regarding the Community Safety Center,

we were still working with the design services.

There, of course, has been this recommendation to have those services be separated from the third precinct entrance.

But I did want to know right now in the design phase, how much square footage can we anticipate be allocated towards the human trafficking division of the site?

Chair Wansley, that's a good question that I can't answer specifically regarding square footage.

Because what we have been designing into the process is, as you noted, separate entrances for the precinct side and the community safety center side.

Within the community safety center side, there is a shared space for community organizations that are partnering with us in that center.

So there isn't an office necessarily that is only for the link or staff for human trafficking prevention and intervention.

Rather, they would have a shared office space, and then there are numerous private conference rooms that they can use to speak privately with clients or with anybody else that they're supporting.

Okay, is there an architectural or like blueprint that's been drafted up of the space as of yet from the firm that has been providing that services of like designing the layout for the community safety center?

Chair Wansley, I've seen a number of drafts of the layouts.

I will ask that probably Will Christensen, the director of community safety design and implementation, or somebody from the property services department follow up with you on the specifics of your question.

Okay, I will note that as a follow-up.

Thank you so much for that.

And just also a little bit of clarity of just what guided the decision around doing the shared space.

Because I recall also in the previous updates that there was an intention to maybe have more of office spaces be located in the community safety side,

not necessarily like service administration kind of spaces.

but just wanted to get a sense of is that still the case?

Is it mostly the share space with people or vendors just using office space there?

Or there will actually be like services administered there, including human trafficking services.

Chair Wonsley, I will do my best to answer that question,

knowing that I'm not quite as connected to that body of work as I was in my previous position.

But my understanding is that we have shared office space because we really want to encourage collaboration.

And we felt like if we siloed service providers into their own private offices, that we would have less interaction, less collaboration regarding the needs of clients and community members.

So we really valued having shared spaces together whenever possible.

That being said, I think there's a mix of it's a landing space for organizations that are going to work with us

and that we want some services to be offered out of that space

because we think there's a variety of ways that the community is going to utilize that space.

In some cases, it's best for services to be done in an outreach format,

and so it could be a landing space where supplies are kept

and people are going out into the community to find people, human trafficking victims, for example.

example. And we want there to be availability if somebody walks into the South Minneapolis

Community Safety Center, whether it's the police side or the community safety center side, and they

need services, we'd like whenever possible for there to be somebody on site directly to interact

with that community member who has needs. We don't want to have to send them someplace else

or give them a phone number to call and follow up later. We want to be able to provide as

as much immediate attention as we can.

Awesome.

Thank you for that.

And I have the staff memo.

And then if you're also where I know

2026 has been the proposed date for the opening,

do we know when in 2026?

I know there used to be a reference of quarters.

But yeah, do we have greater clarity on when in 2026?

Chair Wonsley, I will also ask for property services

to follow up on that piece

because it may have moved

since I was involved in the design process.

Okay, another staff memo follow-up, clarity on when in 2026 will this center be open.

And then also just going back to the slides, thanks for the update around the usage of the public safety aid pilots.

I know council made that appropriation about two years ago of the $4 million to support these initiatives at the community safety center site.

I did want greater clarity on what was the thought process behind including building security as part of the pilot funding.

Yeah, if you could provide a little bit of clarity on that.

Chair Wansley, one of the things that we know in relation to the Youth Connection Center,

which has been in the public service building, is that there is utilization of the city's security staff.

If youth come in and are dysregulated, sometimes the staff within that Youth Connection Center

the Connection Center needs some assistance

in helping keep the youth safe.

In addition to that, when Christina and I went out

to Denver, we actually saw a model where

the security staff were there to greet people.

They weren't just there to monitor

and kick people out who were unruly.

They actually welcomed people in and offered them

water, tea, and then connected them

to a service provider who would help them

as a way of kind of increasing trust

in individuals in uniforms.

We like that model and would like to explore it with our city security staff.

Okay, so we would be using the city security vendor, I'm assuming, at this site as well, or another security firm, potentially?

Chair Wansley, I think that's yet to be determined, as that contract would likely live with property services.

It might be city staff who are asked to work directly and trained specifically to work at that site,

or they may decide that it's best to contract that out to an outside organization.

I don't believe that decision has been made.

Okay.

And thanks for the clarity.

I'm still a little bit stuck on it.

I see security usually as like a bread and butter type of expense,

like something that should generally be absorbed by our general fund likely,

as opposed to the pilot funding, which was to support safety services,

I think in a broader scope of things.

So I would also like to add that to the staff follow-up of finance and property services decision behind seeking out public safety A as opposed to absorbing this within their general budget.

Chair Wonsley, I will just say I know part of the discussion was because of the types of services that we were asking for security to do.

it's not typical as you are probably aware if you walk into this building or or city hall they're

very nice um security is they're very friendly but they're not um offering you kind of a hospitality

lens and connecting you to services in that way and so we in ocs at least considered it a pilot

to utilize safety in that way which is why we were suggesting rather than property services

that it come from that pool of money yeah i like to follow up on that a little bit more um

But with that, those are all the questions that I had.

Again, I'm just more so excited to see us actually go through a formal RFP process.

I think council really pushed for that with wanting to see, of course, rollout of human trafficking services at the community safety site.

You all did the diligence of community engagement and identified that as a need within a community

and wanted to see that we use our proper channels, city channels,

to be able to engage with vendors who have the expertise in that area to administer those services.

So I'm glad that we did go through, after a lot of pressing, a lot of scandal and media scrutiny,

for us to have this public process to consider what is a very credible and I think well-respected vendor

who can offer these services to our broader community.

So with that, I will motion this item for approval, but I also, again, will note Council Member Cashman is in queue.

thank you chair and thank you director harrington i'm glad that you're being proactive and getting

ahead of this to make sure that the services can start right away so i'm very happy to support this

today i just wanted to ask what we have what we have existing right now for these types of services

in the city because i see this is starting you know in 2026 and it'll be a three-year contract

for five hundred thousand dollars but i'm wondering how it builds on existing services

we have around trafficking in the city right now,

if you could just give a little bit of insight

into how this will pair with what we already have.

Chair Wansley, Council Member Cashman,

to my knowledge, there aren't direct services to victims

related to human trafficking currently in the city.

A lot of the services are connected to the county,

to state services and funding,

and our work has really, with SUNU,

been around creating policies and collaborations

within systems that all work with these individuals

rather than providing the direct services ourselves.

And so I think this will be a new area

that the city is exploring.

Okay.

And then will this be for citywide support

or just within the jurisdiction

of the Southside Community Safety Center?

Chair Wonsley, Council Member Cashman,

all services in the city should be available

to anybody in our city.

That being said, we know there is a significant

hot spot of human trafficking happening in South Minneapolis, which is why it's a really

great connection to having something physically in that area. But yes, of course, if somebody in

North Minneapolis or Northeast or downtown needed those services, they would have access to this

contract as well. Okay. Thank you. The reason I'm asking about this is because there is a

constituent case that I'm working on that is involved with this, and it's been very challenging

to find the correct agency to help us,

whether it's MPD or the county attorney's office

or 311, et cetera.

So it's from a user experience,

I would like to understand how council

and our council staff who do constituent services

can better help constituents who need support with this.

And so they don't have to necessarily go there physically,

but could get resources anonymously

anonymously and with you know protecting their identities and other types of

Sensitive information that goes along with these types of cases

So if you have any resources that are available now, like I would really appreciate just just being able to tap into that

And hopefully that access will improve next year with this contract. So thank you so much

Chair Walsley councilmember Cashman

I will note that there are a number of resources up on our web pages about how to get help related to human trafficking currently

but I'm also happy to have Sunu follow up with you directly because she knows all of the resources.

That would be fantastic. Appreciate it.

Awesome. No one else is in queue, so I motion for the item to be approved.

Ashley, can I have a second on that?

Second.

Awesome. That has been seconded.

So with that, I will ask all those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Those opposed, say nay.

All right. The ayes have it, and that motion carries.

Thank you so much, Director Harrington.

And clerks, if there's any clarification on the staff memo questions,

we can follow up afterwards.

Next up is item 48, which is a contract with Catalyst Consulting Group, Inc.,

for a 311 Citizens Request Management System.

I will invite up 311 Service Center Director Nizembe to speak on this item.

Thank you so much.

The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair Wansley and Council Members.

My presentation today is part of the request to approve a contract with Catalyst Consulting

Group for a 311 Citizens Request Management CRM system that is being brought forward by

IT.

Again, my name is Mwenden Zimby, and it is my privilege to serve as the 311 Service Center

Director.

And I'm excited to share what the new 311 CRM will mean for our Minneapolis residents

and the improved way it will enable us to deliver city services.

So the presentation today is solely focused on the benefits of what impact the CRM will have on Minneapolis residents.

The system we have today limits our ability to give people the smooth, transparent, and accessible service they deserve.

And this project is our opportunity to change that.

The vision guiding this work is simple.

A modern resident senate system that makes it easier for people to get help and easier

for us to deliver that help.

Our current 311 CRM has served us for 20 years and it no longer supports the level of responsiveness

and transparency residents expect.

This new CRM will simplify the experience for the public and for staff across departments.

It will support equity and accessibility so that language, ability, or technology barriers

don't stop anyone from getting service.

And it will also improve how issues are tracked, resolved, and giving us tools we simply don't

have today.

Ultimately, it's about giving residents a smoother, cleaner, more transparent experience

when they seek help.

This next slide provides some background information.

When I started at 311 two and a half years ago,

I spoke with many residents who shared ideas

on how we could improve service.

While we made procedure improvements,

technical challenges remained.

With the opportunity to implement a new CRM,

we prioritized building a resident-centered system.

Before issuing an RFP, we gathered feedback

from the community on what was working with the current system, what needed improvement,

and what additional features would enhance service.

We received over 800 responses to guide our work.

People were clear about three main priorities.

First, they want a better way to track their service requests without calling back repeatedly.

Second, they want an improved mobile app with more options.

And third, they want a portal that's easy to use.

These insights directly shaped the project requirements.

We did not assume what people wanted.

We asked and we listened.

Some of the key benefits of what is coming with the new CRM.

First is an expanded self-service.

This is one of the biggest improvements residents will see, the expanded access to self-service,

both online and through an updated mobile app.

Today, many residents have no choice but to call 311.

Even for something simple like checking the status of a request they already made, they

need to speak to a person.

With a new CRM, people will be able to submit, check, update, and get information about their

request on their own whenever it's convenient for them.

Secondly, we'll have a unified 360 degree view of requests.

For city staff, one of the most transformative changes will be a full 360-degree view of

service requests, what the industry calls a domino effect, where each step triggers

the next one smoothly and predictably.

Currently, information is fragmented across departments, slowing resolution, and leaving

residents less informed.

With a new CRM, everyone from 311 to public works to regulatory services will have the

the same real-time information.

This improves coordination, speeds resolution,

and gives residents timely updates

and a more reliable,

resident-centered service experience.

Better reporting and real-time data,

the new CRM will give us a real-time dashboard and data.

Today, a lot of our analysis is manual.

It takes time to understand trends,

identify bottlenecks, and communicate performance.

With built-in analytics, we'll be able to see

what's happening in the moment.

Whether it's no related request spiking,

a neighborhood experiencing repeated issues,

or city-wide service delays.

This will support transparency, accountability,

and smarter decision-making.

Fourth is we are getting an updated IVR, an AI chatbot.

IVR today is functional, but it's limited.

The updated IVR will be more intuitive

and available in more languages.

The AI-powered chatbot will help answer questions

even when 311 is closed.

This means fewer abandoned calls

and fewer people waiting on hold for questions

the system can answer immediately.

Handling complex processes,

one of the realities of 311 today

is that our current CRM cannot support

some of the more complex workflows we manage.

Staff often rely on manual workarounds,

spreadsheets, notes, and emails.

The new CRM will streamline these processes.

Tasks that require multiple departments

will move through the workflow more smoothly

and automatically.

It will reduce errors, shorten turnaround times,

and improve resident experience.

Other benefits to residents will include a customer portal.

A new customer portal will be one of the biggest shifts

in the resident's experience.

For the first time, residents will have access

to a public-facing knowledge base

to search for answers, something we don't have today.

They'll also have self-service tools

to create, track, and update their service requests,

and they'll also have a highly accessible design

available across devices and in multiple languages,

again, something that we do not have today

where they'll be able to access the portal

on any device, on an iPad, on the phone, on the computer.

So this levels the playing field for residents

who may not be able to call during work hours

or who prefer maybe written instructions

where they can go to the public-facing knowledge base

for more information.

With a mobile app, what we have today is very limited.

Many types of requests can only be handled by phone,

calling 311.

With a new CRM, the app will be significantly expanded,

available in multiple languages,

and able to handle more types of requests than ever before.

This is a major improvement for accessibility and convenience,

especially for residents who rely on their phones

as their primary digital device.

This last slide shows the updated timeline.

This month, IT will finalize a contract

and announce the vendor.

In January, 2026, we will begin the project.

In October, 2026, we will go live with phase A,

implementing the CRM,

which will include several communication channels,

including the mobile app and the self-service portal.

And phase B will start in early 2027

and will be rolled out in Q4 of 2027.

And phase B will mostly be enhancements and integrations.

In closing, we are thrilled about the opportunities

this new CRM brings to both staff and residents.

IT is leading the implementation

and 311 is providing resident focused insight

to ensure the system truly serves our community.

A big thank you to our city's chief information officer,

Director Paul Cameron, and the entire IT project team

for their leadership expertise and support.

This concludes my presentation

and I stand for any questions.

Thank you, Director, for that presentation.

We do have Vice Chair Palmisano in queue.

Director Nuzanby, thank you for this presentation.

We've long been awaiting a new case management system,

and I'm happy to hear we're already starting to build that software.

Just this weekend, I had a frustrated resident argue with me that 311 was closed.

It was going to have to take three more days for her to get her request for ice remediation on her street into the streets department.

That's pretty reasonable to not have to wait three days when they can't, you know, be able to drive or walk down their street.

But it's also our streets department was open.

It's reasonable that I was able to get the streets department that request and they were able to put in to go out and remediate it.

And so this is gonna be a welcome new ad.

I had questions about the timeline

into how this would roll out,

and that has been answered on that previous slide,

so thank you.

By next year at this time,

it sounds like that resident would be able

to use those features and reach the streets department

without me needing to intervene.

So this is all good news,

and I'm happy to have you share it again in this format.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I see President Payne in queue next.

Thank you, Chair Wansley.

I was curious if you know the extent to which this platform is turnkey or how much of it

is going to be hyper-customized for our specific use case.

Through the Chair, President Payne, I'll have CIO answer that question.

Chair Wansley, Council President Payne.

My name is Paul Cameron.

I'm the Chief Information Officer for the city.

The platform that we will be utilizing for the CRM, our goal is to make it as turnkey

as possible.

It is being used in several other major metropolitan areas, and so our – that is our hope and

plan at this point in time is to utilize this as out of the box as possible.

And then a maybe conflicting question, is there an opportunity to integrate this with the CRM that we've recently implemented on the council side via the clerk's office?

Council President Payne, I think at this point in time the challenge for that has more to do with process and cost from a kind of a different standpoint.

And so I think that is something that we can look at for the phase B, that second part of the implementation.

But it's also not something that I would feel comfortable now stating that it will for sure happen as well until we can have a closer look into that.

I think one thing that we might be able to do as an interim, and I don't know if these conversations have happened,

but we have our constituent services team working within the clerk's office,

and they're kind of a human interface to an extent,

and I'm wondering it might be wise for us to get a user created within our CRM

who actually sits in 311, and maybe we could pilot from a process perspective

how we might hand off cases to 311,

just so that we can at least get a sense of what that might look like.

Through the chair, President Payne, that is something that we're already considering.

We've put together a change management team and we'll have someone from the constituent

services side be part of it and we are also meeting with them bi-weekly.

So there's a lot of conversations and they know about everything that we're talking about.

So yes, that's something that we can usually do.

Great.

Thank you.

Next, Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Director and Zimby.

Just a couple questions about the app features and how those are going to improve.

Are all of the 3-1-1 case types going to be available to be submitted through the app in the future instead of it's a little bit limited right now?

Through the chair, Councilmember Cashman, yes, that is the goal.

Okay.

Because right now it's very limited.

we only have about 20 something case types

of the over 200 that we have.

And that's a limitation that the current app has.

There's nothing we can do about it, so yes.

Okay, so you're hoping that all of the case types

will be available through the app.

And then will it have a multi-language feature

for residents who don't speak English?

Through the chair, Council Member Cashman, yes.

We'll have, actually it's gonna be more expanded

languages functionality than we have right now.

Right now we only have four languages.

This one will have all languages for not just for the app, but for the external portal.

And also it will also include a chat.

So it will also be available in multiple languages.

Great.

Well, I'm really looking forward to seeing these changes get rolled out.

Again, I'm glad that you're getting this in before the end of the year so that you can start your work early in January of 2026.

So I'll move this item for approval.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

The item has been seconded.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

All right.

The ayes have it.

And that item carries.

Thank you so much again, Director Nismi.

Next is our item 49, which is a special event related non-disclosure agreement matter.

I will invite Enterprise Events Manager Andrew Ballard to come and present on this item.

item

need some assistance mr mallard

oh there we go

All right, we have one of our phenomenal clerks come to the rescue.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

There we go.

Thank you.

Look at that.

All right.

Sorry about that.

Chair Wansley, members of the committee, good afternoon.

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Andrew Ballard.

I'm the Enterprise Events Manager for the city of Minneapolis,

and we're here to talk today and ask for authorization to enter into some non-disclosure agreements

as it relates to large special events that the city could potentially be bidding on,

responding to proposals on, and such.

What this does, many large event owners are now requesting nondisclosure agreements

in order to protect proprietary information on their part,

to protect schedules and information in the RFPs and such.

And also to, like we did last year with Sundance,

to allow the event organizer and event owner to announce which cities they're considering

as we go through the bid process.

excuse me

and but many of these

NDAs are all of these NDAs I'm sorry are

for information sharing purposes only they do not

commit any city funds they do not commit any city

resources or services we will work

very closely with the city attorney's office to ensure that these agreements that we're discussing

with each individual event organizer would comply with all of the data practices requirements.

Also, none of these agreements would be signed by staff. They would be signed by

either the city's chief operating officer or any of the deputy COOs in conjunction,

again, like I said, with the city's attorney's offices.

This, being able to do this would allow us to compete at a different level for large special events.

And we're talking events of significant economic impact, events that, you know, could realize, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars in economic impact for the city.

as we bid and try to compete with other cities

for these events.

I welcome any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Ballard.

I do have myself in queue, just more so for comments

around how I'll be voting, but basically I'm strongly

opposed to essentially City Council seating our authority

to approve NDAs to the mayor's executive officers,

which this resolution and what was affirmed by Mr. Ballard's presentation would happen,

should this be approved.

The current process that requires council's approval is currently a common sense check

and balance over the mayor's request to enter into NDAs on a case-by-case basis.

And I just don't foresee a scenario where an NDA needs to be written and signed so quickly

that we couldn't take the two-week process to bring it through the legislative process

for presentation and for a transparent and democratic vote in consideration.

And I'm just nervous around the slippery slope of us just having any matters that ask us

to concede our authority or delegation of our authority to the mayor's administration.

What unintended concepts will come from that?

So I won't be supporting this item.

And I do see Council President Payne in queue next.

Thank you, Chair Wansley.

My question might have been answered by your comments,

but my main question was, was this a request for a specific NDA,

for a specific event we're actively working towards,

or is this a blanket request to enter into NDAs at large?

This is a blanket request.

Most of it relates to just timing, as the chair mentioned.

There are some times, very much like last year with Sundance,

the Sundance Film Festival when we were doing that

and brought the NDA before city council.

That was something from a timing standpoint.

Basically, we had to walk that on.

It did not go through the committee process.

We had to bring it directly to.

And again, that was one where we got permission from Sundance to basically be in a public forum saying that we were bidding on the Sundance Film Festival.

There are some event owners and organizers that that early in the process would not like disclosure of the cities that are involved in the process at that time.

That's not to say that eventually we will say that we're bidding on this event.

We're competing for it.

There are some events that we are in the mix on that, you know, as an example,

there's one very significant event that is coming up that we're getting ready to get into the bid process for

that if and when we're presented with the NDA from that organization, it'll come before

the next council meeting in, I think it's February after this last meeting next week.

So it's those kinds of instances that this would assist us with in being competitive

with other cities and being able to participate in the process.

You know, the event that we're possibly getting the NDA on, you know,

is a $250 million economic impact event.

So something we, I think, is important for us to be able to compete for.

Yeah, I think we want to come up with a mechanism to be responsive to these types of events.

I'm leaning more towards Chair Wansley's perspective on this.

I think we should develop that mechanism, and that mechanism shouldn't just be blanket-cut council out of it.

I would rather us delegate someone on council to be that point of contact and maybe be authorized to –

I think there's a way of doing this to be responsive without necessarily handing over the entire blanket authority over.

And also, I think it's just always important to keep in mind the reason these organizations want NDAs

is so that they can play jurisdictions off of each other to maximize what they get out of it.

They're not choosing a city because of our demographics or our economic vitality.

They're choosing a city because they're getting the most tax breaks or some other incentive to come.

And it is in their interest to maximize the incentives that each jurisdiction is willing to bring to the table by forcing us into NDAs.

Now, as you said, the economic impact of these events is substantial, and we would like to get those events.

But I think that that's a policy decision that we should be intentional around.

and just cutting the policymakers out of that process I don't think is a winning strategy.

So I don't think I'll support this version of it,

but I'm definitely interested in coming up with a mechanism for us to be responsive.

Okay. Thank you, President Payne.

Next is Vice Chair Palmisano.

Thank you.

Per Council President Payne's last comment, Mr. Ballard, we're not committing anything here.

We're not committing to, I don't know,

different tax incentives or anything like that with this.

That's not what this part of it is for.

Not to say that, I mean, I agree with Council President Payne

that that is something that large events in the past,

there was the idea of whether or not we would sign up

to be a World Cup city next year.

We ultimately decided not to because of the extreme nature

and that just didn't balance the desire

to have a large event like that

with the needs of the residents in our city.

But Mr. Ballard, you're not actually saying

that we're signing up for anything here.

No, all we're signing up for is sharing information,

being able to get the RFP.

This is nothing, like I said,

this does not commit any funds,

any city resources, any city services,

or anything from the city.

All it is is it allows us to receive

the request for proposals so we can then, as you said,

with using World Cup as an example, see what they want to do.

And we may take a pass on it.

We may jump in and go full steam ahead to try to get the event.

It's being able to know what the event owner is looking for

and to be able to get that information from them

so we can compete on a level playing field with other cities.

So I was initially hesitant with the concept of staff

entering into NDAs without council approval,

but I have come around since agenda setting

when I said we needed to talk about this.

It's really important to me that you're not committing

any funds or services here.

It's also important to me that we're able to look at things earlier in the process,

like a feasibility study type of thing.

Just is it even feasible to have an event like that in our city to be able to know what

those requirements would be.

Having followed up with staff to get a better understanding of what this really means, something

that was brought up earlier was the idea of delays,

and I was skeptical of that too,

but this cycle itself is actually a good example.

There's a three-week delay with the off week

or ward work week last week and the holiday.

I understand the sensitive nature and privacy

around bids for public events,

and if we aren't able to comply with NDA requests,

then we just simply won't be able to bid.

and I heard what you said about the turnaround time

being pretty quick.

Our highest level city staff here

would be the one signing off on the approved form,

but can you tell me, Mr. Ballard,

is the CAO form a checklist,

or is it something that verifies the necessity

and the conditions under which you would sign an NDA?

I think that would be something, again, as we would, you know, once we get the NDA from the organization,

again, we would work through with the city attorney's office to see if it's something that we can even commit to.

I mean, we had last summer a lot of wrangling with Sundance in order to meet our data practices requirements.

They were able to, you know, agree to that, and we worked through that.

And, I mean, we made it fairly far into the process with them.

I mean, we were in the top six cities eventually before they made their cut down to their final two.

So, you know, it's just one of those things we don't know what the requirements are going to be

until we actually, you know, get a hold of the NDA and, you know, be able to work through that.

So Amy Schutt is from the attorney's office is unfortunately not able to be here.

today and I know that she's been very helpful with this and very involved in crafting the

resolution that's before you. Large scale events bring a tremendous amount of economic benefit and

revenue to our city. We have to balance that with the needs of the residents in our city.

I think we should be making it easier for residents to have a variety of local events

as well as businesses that would thrive sometimes

with increased activity downtown and elsewhere.

But I hear that there's hesitation

and a desire to consider further

and make some amendments

or even significant changes to this resolution.

So in the event that this still needs some work,

I could suggest forwarding just this as is

without recommendation to full council

and see if once Amy Schutt can have a chat with us

if there's things that could be amended here

to make it compatible with some of the questions

from council.

I do have something that I think is better.

I do have an amended resolution,

but I don't know that addresses all of your concerns.

It hems things in by limiting its authority

just to sports, cultural, and arts events,

and it also gives an initial trial period of one year

so that we could evaluate the effectiveness,

see what kinds of things are signed off,

and maybe by the end of it have a different type of system

more similar to what Council President Payne is suggesting.

But I don't know that this would be ready

for any type of full approval.

So maybe I will suggest and make a motion

to just forward this without recommendation for now

and see what we can figure out by next week.

Second.

All right, Vice Chair Pomisano has made a motion

to forward this item without recommendation.

It's been seconded by President Payne.

I just want to, I put myself in queue

for some follow-up comments.

I don't think there's a dispute or any questions

around the significance of partnering with event planners to bring in large-scale events.

No one's debating that.

What is being debated is the language that is very clear-cut in this resolution

that asks that the authority that is granted to council to approve these things,

these type of requests, then be delegated out to the city operations officer

and the deputy city operations officer.

So for us to concede our authority to do the oversight and ultimate approval of these type of requests,

and that just moved through the administrative side without any checks and ballots from this body,

that is what's being debated.

And I just want to offer some clarity because you referenced around the delays,

specifically the Sundance, where you had to walk on the item

and cited that as an example of what you're trying to navigate through the presentation of this resolution.

A walk-on, I just want, for clarity purposes, is still moving through the legislative process.

You bringing a walk-on thus allows this body to still deliberate if we are going to approve, consider, or take any action on the motion.

It still initiates the legislative process.

What you're requesting or what the mayor's administration is requesting is asking for us to not even have that as an option.

That is the problem.

I don't think there's even around, like, the limited scope of authorities around, like, should this be limited to events?

Should we try it out for a year?

That is actually none of the concerns.

It's council conceding its core authority to do oversights of these type of requests

and ultimate approval of these type of requests through our standard legislative process.

That's what we're giving up through the potential approval of this resolution.

So I wanted to give clarity on that.

And I think from your comments, Vice Chair Pomazano,

what you're presenting as a potential substitute also doesn't align with what I think is the core concern here.

So I am more than happy to facilitate further conversations around that.

I don't know outside of I will not be supporting a resolution that essentially concedes council's authority.

I just want to name that.

It's not around limited to events.

It's not around commitments to funding or any of that.

I will not be supporting a measure that concedes that authority.

Just want to name that.

And why I feel hesitant of actually having this item leave committee.

but I will defer this or next I see Councilmember Cashman in queue as well

Thank You Chair Wansley Thank You Mr. Ballard I had a question about the last

line you know the this doesn't include any commitment of funding or resources

what do you consider to be resources or could you further define that I think

that's one of my hang-ups with this resolution is like that is a very vague

term and what does that mean to you in this context when you wrote it well

council chair Wansley and councilmember Cashman I what we're we're looking to do

is basically not put anything that would cost the city money forward again this

This is something that would give us the ability to share information.

It's not committing any tax credits.

It's not committing any agency or departmental services.

We're not committing the police department to anything.

We're not committing public works to anything.

We're not committing any type of incentives to any organization.

And that all comes later in the process as we start negotiating contracts and working through the bid process.

What this does is this allows us to get the materials necessary to make an educated response to an event owner

about whether or not the city of Minneapolis wants to pursue having their event in Minneapolis.

So the reason that I'm a little concerned about resources is even your staff time is a resource that's already been expended.

And so I think that that could be a little bit, you know, stretched in terms of what city resources are spent.

Like that can be staff time.

And I think part of my concern is that when we approved the Dinner Do Nord event permit,

we asked for a memo about the amount of city resources that were spent on that event.

and that memo came back saying, oh, it was the $25,000 CEP grant from Meet Minneapolis.

That was the public expense.

Well, later we found out there was a lot of other in-kind services

and additional Meet Minneapolis money spent as well as a staff person at the city's time,

and all of that was not included in my request around how much was spent on that event.

And so that's something that gives me pause with this is resources is a very vague term.

It could be anything.

and if we could define that to a certain amount of hours of staff time or a certain dollar amount,

I would feel a lot more comfortable.

So I will support the motion to move forward without recommendation,

but just want to say that I completely agree with Chair Walensley's assessment

that we shouldn't give away the authority of council to have some oversight.

We should be more descriptive with what we mean by amount of city resources contributed

before we sign an NDA, which is kind of a scary term to go in government.

It's like very antithetical to I feel like our transparency,

but I do understand what you're trying to do,

and I think it can have a huge benefit.

So I appreciate you taking the time to work with us on what we could support.

Thank you, Council Member Cashman.

I will note, again, I would actually, I see their shared agreement

to want to do further workshopping on this matter to create a process.

I don't necessarily feel comfortable with moving this forward to full council,

So we will take up Vice Chair Palmasano's motion to move forward with it without recommendation.

Should that not be approved, I will ask and make a motion for this to be referred back to staff

so that there can be those additional meetings done to understand what is actually the goal

that doesn't allow us to also cut out council's authority in the mix.

So with that, I will call the roll on Vice Chair Palmasano's motion.

Let me make sure no one else is in queue to forward this with our recommendation.

Council Member Payne.

Nay.

Vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Chogtay.

Nay.

Vice Chair Palmasano.

Aye.

Chair Wansley.

Nay.

That is three ayes, three nays.

That item does not move forward.

As I mentioned, I will make the motion to refer this item back to staff for further conversations, and we'll ask for a second.

Second.

If you can call the roll.

Council Member Payne.

Aye.

Vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Choktay.

Aye.

Vice Chair Palmisano.

Aye.

Chair Wansley.

Aye.

That is six ayes.

Okay.

That motion carries and that item has been referred back to staff.

Next, we will move forward with, oh, my Lord.

I'm trying to do a time check because we are trying to get to the closed sessions by three o'clock.

We do have our next item, which is the master contract with various eligible agencies for the Minneapolis Health Department for 2026 through 2028.

I'm going to invite a director.

Focus.

Focus.

Thank you to speak on this item.

And then ideally next, we will move on to the closed sessions.

I'm not seeing my presentation on here.

We're going to need help again.

Thanks.

Do you have a flash drive?

I'm not going to.

Okay, grab it up.

That was my calendar.

Are we just getting some tech assistance here?

Okay.

It's not loaded up.

Thank you.

Clerk staff, does this require someone to come up and assist?

No?

Oh, okay, perfect.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chair Wansley, members of the committee, thank you for your patience.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chris Thokas.

I am the Director of Operations and Business Improvement for the Health Department.

I'm gonna walk you through some background and context

on the master contracts that we are hoping to move forward.

A little bit of background, the Health Department's

current five-year master contracts

end on December 31st of this year.

We did issue an RFP that was posted on September 2nd

for new three-year master contracts.

The new process with procurement is that we are moving

from five-year contracts to three-year contracts.

The department received 137 proposals following a competitive review.

A total of 120 for-profit, community, non-profit, and governmental political subdivisions were

determined to move forward and met the requirements to be an eligible agency.

Of these 120, 67 agencies met the city's equity and inclusion goals for contracts over 100,000

and are being submitted for authorization for approval to enter into master contracts.

The other remaining 53 eligible agencies will be moved forward at a later date.

They're currently working on their documents to meet that requirement.

Changes that we went through in this particular master contract cycle,

we broadened the criteria for eligible organizations to include for-profit organizations as well as smaller nonprofits.

We hosted informational pre-application conference calls.

So we did a lot of outreach to community to broaden the base of organizations that might apply.

We really walked them through the benefits of, first of all, what is a master contract with the city?

What are the benefits to being a master contractor?

And how do you navigate the e-supplier system?

So we did a couple of webinars or teams meetings with organizations that were interested.

We partnered up with procurement and answered any questions that they might have.

We also combined this year, usually the health department goes through two separate RFPs, one for general master contractors and then a separate list of master contractors that support the sustainability, healthy homes and environment team.

This year we put one RFP forward to build a comprehensive master contract list rather than do it twice.

It is a pretty big lift to do an RFP and so we combined efforts.

And then lastly, we did expand the master contract categories that people could apply for,

organizations could apply for.

So we have preventative services, chronic disease, behavioral health, climate and environment,

injury prevention, community engagement and outreach, operations and infrastructure,

as well as public health workforce development.

So an organization could apply for one of those categories or multiple categories.

Master contract details.

The eligible providers list for master contracts will remain in effect for three years as I stated.

So the whole full years of 26, 27 and 28.

The eligible provider list is not an exclusive list used to distribute funding.

We can still do RFPs if we feel that we need to cast a broader net.

if we want to just gather more interest

than what we have on our existing list.

The awards are not a guarantee of funding,

and the amounts are a three-year total, not an annual total,

and they are a not-to-exceed total.

As you know, the advantages to having a master contract

with the health department would be to facilitate contracting

for activities that can't be predicted over the three-year period.

It reduces the burden for agencies to apply and compete for multiple RFPs during the three-year period,

and it speeds up the contracting process that allows the health department to execute deliverables in a timely manner.

The health department is heavily funded by state and federal grants,

and a lot of times those deliverables have pretty tight timelines,

and so it is really helpful for us to engage our partners and community organizations

through a funding award notice if they're a master contractor.

So that concludes my presentation, and I stand for questions.

Thank you, Director Thulkes.

I see Council Member Cashman in queue, and then by Chair Palmasano.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Director Thulkes.

Thulkes, like focus a camera.

Awesome.

I just wanted to thank you for this.

I think we've seen on this committee the need for master contracts for public safety services like the Minneapolis services.

And a lot of times, you know, needs throughout the city seem to fluctuate and change.

And it's important to have flexibility in our contracts so that we can deliver services without needing to reissue an RFP and do that whole cycle all over again.

So I think that it's smart to move into these master contracts, and I will move this item for approval today.

Thanks.

All right.

Is there a second for that motion?

Second.

All right.

It's been seconded by Council Member Vita.

Next, we have Vice Chair Pomisano.

And just before, Council Member Cashman, did you mean to get in queue again?

No.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had asked for a presentation on this item because there was no information in the RCA agenda setting as to what these contracts were for.

I understand the need for master contracts to be nimble and have organizations already under contract to provide exactly the work we need in the exact time, place, or culturally appropriate way that we're going to need it.

That's forward planning that I support.

I think you said that these are up to amounts because this is a master contract.

This is also millions and millions of dollars without any descriptions as to what services these different contractors could provide, and this is only a portion of them.

We normally see a master contract that's for a defined purpose.

purpose in the past couple cycles we've seen master contracts for workforce development or

for executive recruitment services or for public works consulting but what you're saying director

focus is that an rca will be done later for every single one of these as we appropriate money out to

these different causes chair wansley vice chair palmisano um not an rca so we're moving one rca

for the first 67 master contracts,

and then the remaining 53 would move forward

at a later time, and the way that we distribute

those funds is to do a funding award notice

off of those master contracts.

And the funding award notices, we could have many

that would not exceed the total of each contract.

And we have quite a variety, because we have contractors

on this list that do tree removal or weatherization,

and then we have some very small non-profits

who we're hoping to work with to build capacity

that might have a $30,000 or $50,000 three-year limit.

But it gets them in the door.

They learn how to work with the city.

We help to build their capacity as an organization.

With those other contracts,

with those other master service contracts,

we understand and the public understands

what work is being provided,

but not the case with this one singular huge master contract

for the entire health department.

I see general categories in your presentation slide,

but do you have a sense of how many different programs

you will be resourcing with these contracts

that are in the health department?

Chair Wansley, Vice Chair Palmisano,

I think it's hard to say exactly.

Another way to look at this might be for us

to list each of the contractors

and what category we are awarding them funds for

because we do know that.

And each of them will have a separate master contract.

Right.

I would have preferred to see those general categories

broken down into health programs

and then the vendors listed within each program.

Like, do we know what the total amount is available

under this master contract?

Is it the entire budget of the health department?

Chair Wansley, Vice Chair Palmisano,

I think that it exceeds the total budget

of the health department.

As I mentioned before, we are largely grant funded

and we frequently get new grants coming in.

This gives us that flexibility.

We really tried to analyze the organization's capacity

and financial standing, look at the risk level

from the length of the lifetime of the organization,

the work that they've done in the past deliverables,

and tried to award an amount not to,

just using good best funding practices

of not to ever exceed an organization's

like 40% of their revenue.

And so we tried to use a variety of those criteria

when determining those dollar amounts.

I appreciate that.

But I just think that it is really fuzzy to me

what ultimate dollar amount you're asking us to approve.

It seems like an awful lot,

and that information is really vital to me

understanding this request,

and for me at least, it would be necessary to take a vote.

So if I could use, I very rarely use this,

but the response memo function to ask for some follow-up on more specificity about these kinds

of things. I mean, it honestly feels like you're asking us to approve the next couple of years

worth of health department spending in one go without any information. So I would have thought

that after the auditor's report on the Helix contract and the recommendations to the health

department for better management of payment of contracts, that there were new processes in place

related to transparency and fiscal management

that we would have received a lot more information.

So I will be abstaining on this vote for now,

and I will hope that we could get that information

by the time it comes to full council

so that I can vote on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Just double-checking.

Oh, I have myself in queue,

but just seeing timing,

I won't divulge too much.

I think if I share a problem on the race,

some of the things that I was considering in regards to the recommendations from the city auditor

in doing the Helix contract review and just wanting to get more clarity of how those recommendations

from the city auditor basically helped to shape the master contract process for this.

I think there will be many meetings in which the city auditor will give to the audit committee

of how they're working with health to better streamline those processes.

but that said I will move, actually no,

Council Member Cashman already motioned this item

for approval so I will, oh, would you, yes, okay,

I see Council Member Cashman back in queue.

Thank you Chair.

After Vice Chair Palmasano talked about the approval,

I did want to get some clarity on whether or not

RCAs would still come forward.

You already asked that question,

but are RCAs still gonna come forward for these services

or would they all be authorized

unless it's under $150,000.

Chair Wansley, Council Member Cashman.

So the detail of what, the detail of the work

and the very specific deliverables are outlined

in each individual funding award notice

and those fans come before for approval, correct?

Yeah, so the fans come through individually

and that is where the deliverables are seen.

So all of the detail for each of those categories is really outlined in the fan.

We have very specific smart objectives, deliverables, all of that.

That detail shows up in a funding award notice, not in the master contract.

The master contract is a broader category, and then the fan is where the details and the program that it's supporting shows up.

Okay, so I want to ask the clerks then if you're aware of the frequency and transparency that comes with a fan.

Like, does it always come through council?

Is there a policy around, like, an amount of funding that has to be above in order for it to go through for approval?

That is something we'd have to get back to on, that information.

Oh, did you have something to add to that as well?

Chair Wansley, Council Member Cashman,

my colleague Hannah Yee is our contract administrator

and she said the fans actually don't come before the body,

the RCAs do.

So it's the two RCAs that are approving master contracts.

But the detail that you're lacking is actually

what we would put in a funding award notice.

So, but there's no mechanism for a funding award notice to come before the council or

to be published online.

Correct.

I misspoke.

Yeah.

Is this like in line with our financial policies?

I put myself in queue because I think where I'm also hearing you all, we have approved

master contracts in this body before.

So I think you used the example from neighborhood safety department.

Specifically, we just did one around violence prevention services.

Similar, or also workforce development from CPAC, they have a list of, exhaustive list of organizations that they would like to partner with for certain services.

But what we've seen through this body is when there's a specific effort from the administration to move forward with one of those vendors,

amendment appropriation is brought forward before this body.

So let's say, you know, we approve this, just picking a random partner that's listed here, Wilder, that has up to $800,000 based off of your list.

I think there is a question of when you would like to move forward with those services, will that amendment be brought forward to this body for approval and, well, consideration and approval?

So we've seen master contracts, but the individual amendments that's aligned with the preparations for the proposed vendors come before this body.

And I think we're now hearing that approving this list means that there will not be that process.

And I think that's creating lots of concern because we haven't seen that happen with our financial policies.

I don't know if we have Director Fernandez here, too, or DCO Jelly, someone to offer clarity on that piece.

Hi, Director Fernandez.

Chair Wansley, members of the committee, my name is Pam Fernandez.

I'm the Director of Procurement.

So I would like to take this conversation a little bit back.

So master contracts are usually done through just one single RFP.

and usually the RFP will tell us what it is for.

Like, for example, in the Public Works RFP,

we will have different categories in them, right?

And then we choose vendors under those different categories.

So like you asked, we could redo that,

redo it through a memo or something

like where these vendors fall under each category.

Now, to the, so once that master contract is established, and you will say, you will put a cap on those contracts, right?

And then when that cap is exceeded, that's when we come to the council for an amendment, okay?

But during the whole life of that contract, there will be, like, what we call work orders, you know, so we call it work orders.

And those doesn't come to the council.

Okay, so those are under that cap that you already approved for that master contract.

So that's the difference.

You know, the work order, which happens under these contracts, it will be like many different ones for many different work and amounts.

Those doesn't come to the council.

So there's, okay, I think, okay, sorry.

I see, yeah, Council Member Vita in queue.

Thank you, Chair Wansley.

My questions may have been answered with these last things,

but I think that's the concern is what, in the past when we've seen these,

they've had a dollar amount attached to them and also like a time frame.

The services don't concern me as much as what is the dollar amount, like what is the full amount that is going to go to these contracts?

And like say someone is going to do a large amount of services, is their contract $4 million versus $5,000?

Like that's kind of more aligned with my questioning.

And I mean, I understand the process of we have master contracts, we're approving them.

But what's the range is, I think, what we've received in the past,

like the range of dollars that each awardee would get.

What is the range of money that they would be receiving,

rather than $5,000 or $25,000?

I think the conversations we've had up here are about people having leftover dollars

and where that goes and then maybe an amendment later,

but that's the piece that's missing for me.

What is the potential partnership amount with these contractors is the information that I want to know.

I've never seen it here.

I mean, I appreciate you not wasting what 20 sheets of paper to put to list every single contractor on the agenda,

but I do think having dollar amounts, and if that's a staff memo, I think that's fine,

but that's what I need for my comfort is just like who is the organization?

someone's already requested the service area, but what is the dollar amount?

And it doesn't have to be exactly the right dollar amount,

but that also helps me to understand where the health department's budget is,

how much of that is being used towards these organizations,

and it also guides us through how we communicate to constituents about the services in their community

because this isn't necessarily the health department doing the work.

this is an organization in their community that's doing the work and I'm able to say you know the

city is contracting with North Point to do x y and z right and so like I think for me I just need to

see the list of who the organization is and how much money is going to be associated with each

one of these organizations and over what time period is that expected to be. Thank you for that

Council Member Vita, in further conversation also with Vice Chair Pomisano, I think I'm getting greater clarity on what's also being asked.

I would say I actually don't.

I think this goes beyond a staff memo.

I think this is actually redoing the RCA in many ways.

I'm just going to reference the master contract that we approved for CPAS specifically for the workforce development services for 2026 through 2028.

They also have the total amount in which each contract reflects, and they have that in the RCA language.

They said the total number of contracts that we're looking at comes to an amount of $14 million.

And then they give a breakdown in the RCA of each one of those contracts.

Project for Pride of Living should not exceed $7.2 million.

And so we're missing that level of clarity and transparency in the RCA phase, which I do agree should give us pause.

I'm sorry, Chair.

I just got a message saying it is in the dollar amounts are in the RCA.

Yes.

In the, if it's the large con, I'm looking at like what's reflected on the presentation.

If it's like slide seven that lists the dollar amounts.

I think, yes, it's the formatting I think is a little bit off that we're used to.

And if there's the total amount.

So I do think if it's in the total amount that we could get more clarity of how much are these 69 million,

I'm sorry, 69 contracts actually totally to.

CPES at 14 million for theirs.

So I do think there is some changes that needs to be made to the RCA.

ahead of full council. I will actually say a motion to move this forward without recommendation

just to give staff the time to do work on this before it comes forward for further consideration.

Is there a second on that? Second. Okay. Oh, I see Council Member Cashman. Thank you. I would still

like to ask for a follow-up on what exactly constitutes like a change in a master contract

that would bring an action toward council so that we can at least anticipate, you know,

if we're approving these master contracts, at what point do we have the opportunity to review

or have an oversight function on how much is being spent and how much is going out?

I know we have a financial policy around a contract, like $150,000 contract,

but I believe we also have some other processes that we have reporting of certain contracts

contracts that are under that amount being reported on a regular basis too and just want

to make sure that we'll have that opportunity.

Yeah and staff memo uh acknowledging that and then I think vice chair you also mentioned

just more clarity of how you came to the totals for each vendor because I think you raised a piece

of just taking a glance at the dollar amounts allocated to each potential vendor looks like it

it could exceed the total budget of health,

health's total budget in general.

So I think there's some clarity on that too

of how did you land to these amounts.

Assuming of course that you don't go

and meet that threshold that's allocated,

but I do think we've had lots of conversations too

around like being a little bit more realistic

of then bringing appropriations

that align with what's actually being spent.

So yeah, with that, if we feel good

without the motion to move this forward

without recommendation, I will ask staff to-

Chair Wansley?

Oh, yes.

We did have a motion by Cashman, Council Member Cashman,

to approve.

Can I ask Council Member Cashman,

would you be amenable to withdrawing that so we can do-

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, so that motion has been withdrawn,

so we can now take up the motion for forwarding

without recommendation with more work requested

of help ahead of for Council.

Council Member Payne.

Aye.

Councilmember Vita. Aye.

Cashman. Aye.

Chuck Ties, Epsitt. Vice Chair Paul Masano.

Aye. Senate Epstein.

Chair Wansley. Aye.

That's four ayes.

All right. So the motion to move this forward with our recommendation carries, and that's the outcome of that.

All right. So last item, 19 minutes later than we intended.

will be our closed session, which I will now ask the city attorney to provide a legal basis for.

So I'll pass it to you, CAO Abelson.

Thank you, Chair Wansley.

There are two items for a closed session today.

The first is we'll be closing for labor negotiations.

This is for consideration of strategy for labor negotiations involving the Minneapolis Police Officers Federation.

Consideration of negotiation strategies or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals may be held in a closed session under Minnesota Statute Section 13D.03.

In order to close the meeting to the public, the majority of the committee must vote to close the meeting.

In deciding whether to close the meeting for labor negotiation strategy,

the committee should weigh the right of the public to know what its government is doing

against the need of the city to reserve the confidentiality of its labor negotiations strategy.

Following the labor negotiations matter, the next item on the agenda is the receipt of a security report

or briefing on emergency response procedures in the event of increased federal activity.

Under Minnesota Statute Section 13D05, Subdivision 3D, meetings may upon proper motion be closed to receive security briefings and reports to discuss issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency response procedures, and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure, and facilities.

If disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses.

Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions must be made in an open meeting.

Before closing the meeting under this section, you must, in describing the subject to be discussed, refer to the facilities, systems, procedures, services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting.

Thank you.

That was a mouthful there.

Thank you, CAO.

I now move that our public meeting be closed as authorized under the provisions of the open meeting law, specifically Minnesota Statute Section 13D.03 for the purpose of receiving a briefing on a strategy for labor negotiations involving the Police Officers Federation and Minnesota Statute Section 13D.05 subsection 3D for the purpose of receiving a briefing on emergency response procedures in the event of

increased federal activity. May I have a second to that motion? Second. All right. There was a

jinx right there by two of our colleagues. That's been seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Those opposed say nay. There's no opposition. All right. That carries. 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 Administration Enterprise Oversight Committee

We will reconvene in public after we have conducted the closed session.

With that, thank you and see you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we have four.

All right, Tech Team, one minute warning.

all right so we're back from our closed session um and there's no other business to complete

before us but i will ask the clerk to call the row to verify we have a quorum before we adjourn

Councilmember Payne. Present. Vita. Present. Cashman is absent. Chuck Ty is

absent. Vice Chair Palmisano. Present. Chair Wansley. Present. That is four members

present. All right let the record reflect that we have a quorum and we've

concluded all business that's come before us today. Happy end and last day

of AO y'all we made it. All right have a good holiday. Bye.

Thank you.

Thank you.