Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Aisha Chugtai and I'm the chair of the budget committee.

I'm going to call to order our adjourned committee meeting for Friday, December 5th.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff

and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation.

These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase 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.

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

At this time I will ask the clerk to call the roll so that we can verify the presence

of a quorum.

Councilmember Payne.

Present.

Wansley.

Present.

Rainville.

Present. Vita. Present. Ellison is absent. Osman is absent. Cashman. Present. Jenkins.

Absent. Chavez. Present. Chowdhury. Present. Palmasano. Present. Vice Chair Kosky. Present.

Chair Chugtay. Present. That's 10 members present. Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum.

I will also remind my colleagues that we will be using speaker management today, so please make sure to sign in.

in. Let me do that as well. Okay, today we will begin considering revisions to the to

Mayor Frye's 2026 recommended budget. Over the last several months, this committee has

received a series of presentations to examine the details of each department's budget requests.

This committee has held three public hearings on this budget.

and the city council will be hosting the final public hearing this upcoming

Tuesday December 9th at 6.05 p.m. in these chambers.

I want to start with an overview of the process I intend to follow for this

meeting. The amendments are ordered in a packet that was sent to all council

members and posted in limbs. There are 38 amendments in this packet

And we will go through these proposed amendments one by one.

Revised amendments are printed on yellow paper in the binders.

Any additional revisions will come to you on yellow sheets of paper as well.

As I anticipate, we will be working on amendments all day.

considering the number of proposed amendments and the desire from several members in the body

to try to make as much progress as we can today and potentially complete this packet.

I am going to plan to call brief recesses throughout the day instead of doing a longer

lunch break. So please flag for me. You can do that by sending me a Teams message.

when you feel like it's time for a brief recess.

And so that will help us get through as much of the work that we can today.

We have a hard stop today at 5 o'clock because we don't have captioners after that.

So let's try to get through as much as we can between now and then.

There are additional markup meetings that are scheduled for Monday and Tuesday and we

will cancel those if we get through our work or we'll pick this back up on Monday.

As we work through the budget today, please remember to be respectful of each other and

of this process.

Additionally, please make sure you're signed into speaker management so that you're not

asking your neighbor to log in for you.

To ensure we have accurate time tracking, we will be sticking, per our council rules,

to the appropriate time tracking.

Each member on each motion has up to two speeches.

The first speech is seven minutes, and the second speech is five minutes.

So we want to be able to track your time appropriately.

Do my colleagues have any questions about the process I've outlined?

I am not seeing any.

With that, we will begin the amendment packet that is in front of us.

I will recognize the author of each amendment to introduce their motion, and then we will

open the floor for discussion on amendments before taking a vote.

Staff from the budget office is on hand to address questions that may arise during our

discussion as well as the departments whose budgets are being considered for changes.

that. Amendment number one is the technical amendments that are always

brought forward by finance staff for any revisions that are needed. I'm gonna ask

Budget Director Jane DeCenza to come up and briefly explain what we have before

us in the technicals. Welcome director. Good morning Chair Chugtie, Council

members, Jane DeCenza, Budget Director of Finance and Property Services. As you'll

see in the technical amendments file there are a number of changes though

fewer than prior years and largely these are just corrections to the low-level

departments that we initially place these dollars into for the mayor's

recommended budget so for example in items A through D reference the

affordable housing trust fund and correct it's a correction of which CPED

low-level department is receiving those dollars. Similar situation for health as

well as a you know budget neutral shift of personnel dollars of non-personnel

dollars. So you can see on the bottom of page two an aggregate table that shows

the impact of these changes so expenditures and revenues tie out evenly.

Thank you, Director. Are there any questions? I'm not seeing any. I'll move this item for

approval. Can I get a second? Second.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? The ayes have it, and that motion carries.

Next we will move to Amendment 2, which is the Mayor's Amendments. I will again recognize

Director Descenza to briefly summarize what we have before us. Thank you, Chair Chugtai.

Item two is a recognition of additional revenue for the capital budget. So this is an increase

in both revenue and expenditure to the 4100 street fund, the street paving capital program.

We received additional grant dollars from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

And so this wasn't a technical because it didn't represent an error, but we just have

more information about the total dollar amount we're receiving from MnDOT.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions? I will recognize Councilmember Paul Misono.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As Director DeCenza said, even though there are less than half

the number of amendments to consider this year, we only got about 48 hours to review

and research these amendments, and that's a pretty big lift. I've previously asked,

and will continue to do so that we get this information in a timely manner.

Maybe a week ahead of time would have been appropriate so we can all be prepared.

As I did not have time to appropriately prepare, I will have questions for the authors and for staff as we go on.

But even more concerning than that, we only received a management response that I just opened,

but we received it like 15 minutes ago.

So I'm not going to have time to read that.

I would like to ask the COO kind of what was the reason for that pause and how we are going to proceed here,

if there are any takeaways from that, because there is no way that we're going to be able to go and dig into that now.

I am aware that many of you have worked together and have been intimately involved with this process,

but for those of us who were not invited into those discussions, we are at a very serious disadvantage.

Councilmember, I'm just wondering how your question relates to the amendment that's in front of us, which is about public works.

We are talking about item number two, right?

The mayor's amendments in general.

I actually was in queue back on item number one.

And it was just about in general as we start.

So, yes, it applies to the technical amendments, but it could also apply to the mayor's amendment.

I'm still in queue from before.

Gotcha.

Thank you, Madam Chair, council members.

Thank you, Council Member Palmisano.

I will first apologize for the lateness of this.

The responses are written to the original drafting of the amendments.

We have been working very hard with the chair and with her staff to revise amendments.

I think you will be seeing some of those revised amendments.

Many of them would be acceptable to the administration under a full agreement.

However, at this moment, we don't have that full agreement.

So, Madam Chair, COO Anderson Kelleher, is it reasonable to expect that those will be flagged for us?

I see there will be in yellow in our packets, but when there is a management response, I'd like that to be flagged for us so I can go in and dig through that packet because I have not had a chance to go through that packet.

I mean, I get that these conversations have been ongoing

and into last night, perhaps this morning,

but where are we at on them from your perspective,

from the administration's perspective?

Chair Chugtai, Council Member Palmisano,

with the help of the chair, her excellent staff, Kai Shelley,

we have made great progress,

but there are a few things to work out.

There's a very problematic amendment I will speak to when it is offered.

And certainly we would, and the mayor most prefers,

to have a signed budget with the council with items we can implement in 2026.

Right now we're not there.

I see. Thank you. Thank you.

Council Member Poison, this answers all of your questions.

Wonderful.

I'm going to move approval of the mayor's amendments.

Does anyone have any questions related to the mayor's amendment, which is about a grant

that we received from MnDOT?

I'm not seeing any, so I will move approval.

Can I get a second?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it, and that motion carries.

We will now move to Amendment number three.

This amendment in your packet is in yellow.

This is a revised version of an amendment.

I actually think that without exception, every single revised amendment that you see here

is a product of discussions with the administration.

And they are a, this is, this symbolizes, right,

like the tremendous amount of progress

we actually have made with the administration.

So this amendment is actually offered

by Council Member Osmond, who I don't see here.

So we're gonna skip over amendment number three

and come back to it.

We're going to now move on to Amendment 4, which is also revised.

For this, I'm going to recognize the author, Councilmember Vita, to please present your amendment and make a motion.

Thank you, Chair.

So Amendment 4 comes out of many conversations we've been having here,

and actually conversations that Councilmember Kosky and I have been having for a couple years now.

I get to sit on the board of an organization that helps with utilities,

and I've known for years that funding for these sort of organizations has been lacking for quite some time.

So this amendment before you is an amendment to set aside $150,000 from the franchise fee

and then $50,000 ongoing to serve as a way to help residents with utilities.

And this, Council Vice President, you and I had a conversation about this,

and you've done a great job at trying to help me out with this,

but I thought we came to a conclusion, though,

that it wouldn't be contingent on the action that is happening this week.

But as I read this, it's saying that it's contingent on the action that's happening this week.

Gotcha.

The goal was to use resources from the Climate Legacy Initiative without impacting any staff positions that are funded through Climate Legacy Initiative and other programs that have already been appropriated.

So of the new revenue that could be generated by an increase to franchise fees, $200,000 of that one, 50 one time, and then 50 ongoing would be set for?

Yes, completely understand that.

But I think where there may be a little bit of disconnect is that we don't know where that ordinance is going, like that change is going.

So if that doesn't pass or if something happens with that, then this whole thing is a wash based on this.

I see what you're saying.

And so that is the conversation I thought we had been having was like, what is the alternative to it being tied to this franchise fee?

I think let's consider the item as it's written and see if we can have our budget staff take a look,

work with admin to figure out what exists in the base appropriation from climate legacy initiative and franchise fees.

for 2026, that $10 million base,

and where there's a program that may accommodate

what Council Member Vita is saying right now

so that her amendment doesn't have to be contingent.

If we can figure something like that out,

then we can come back to it all the way at the end of the packet

and make a revision, but for now, I think your amendment,

we can just consider it.

That way, in case that doesn't work out, we've got something done.

Is that okay?

Yes, that is. Thank you.

Excellent.

Any additional comments as you present your amendment?

Just, colleagues, I would really appreciate the support on this.

This is really going to get to what I've been saying.

We increased these fees.

Somehow residents have increased utility bills,

and they're looking for additional support from these organizations

that help on utility support.

And I would like to have this funding and ongoing funding

to help offset some of that cost to residents.

Wonderful.

Will you make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion.

Wonderful.

Is there a second?

Second.

We have a proper motion.

Any other discussion?

And right before that, I'm going to recognize that we've been joined in this meeting by council members Osmond and Jenkins.

Council member Cashman.

Oh, thank you, Chair Chugtai.

I just wanted to note that on amendment number six, we do have contingency language.

And so in case the administration is not able to find a way to work this into the existing $10 million allocation in CLI,

the other option is to write a contingency clause that says exactly what it says on Budget Amendment No. 6,

that says it's contingent on the adoption of the gas franchise fee and electric franchise fee ordinances

that we'll be considering next Thursday.

So if that first plan doesn't work out, there's the backup plan.

Yep.

So, Council Member Cashman, that's how the amendment is written right now.

Number four?

Mm-hmm.

Oh, great.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Member Payne.

Aye.

Wansley.

Aye.

Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye.

Osmond. Aye. Cashman. Aye.

Jenkins. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Chaudhry.

Aye. Palosano. Aye. Vice Chair Kosky.

Aye. Chair Chugtay. Aye. That is 12

ayes. That motion

carries. We are going to return back up

to amendment number three from council member osman um council member osman will you please

present your amendment and make a motion yes uh thank you so much chair uh this amendment purpose

is to establish zero waste project manager full-time within bubble works to lead and coordinate

and advance the city community driven zero waste program uh this position will be responsible

building a shared and equitable salad waste recycling system that protects

public health advances environment justice and supports the city in them in

the meeting the state goal to achieve 75 percent recycling rate by 2030 that's

one part of it the second part is requesting proposal budget 25 percent

ongoing funding to support zero waste work group. This work group will serve as a central

community-rooted structure responsible for strengthening the city's zero waste strategies.

I will move this amendment for approval. Thank you so much.

Council Member Osmond has moved approval. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a proper motion before us. Colleagues, are there any questions?

I will recognize Councilmember Palmisano.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

These are comments for the authors.

I really appreciate the need to continue working towards zero waste.

It's one of the only ways that we can reduce and potentially close the Herc.

But I'm curious why this funding is from solid waste and recycling

and not the climate legacy initiative,

because there's already funding for this in the climate legacy initiative.

I wasn't even sure, though I assume this has gone through appropriate legal review, that this is even an appropriate use of our solid waste and recycling funds.

Can you tell us a little bit about your decisions as to why you're pulling this money directly from solid waste?

I'm so sorry.

Council Member Osmond, I think that might be a question that is most appropriate for the city attorney?

Well, I guess it is to the extent of, is this an allowable use of revenue that we're getting from our solid waste and recycling customers to use it for this purpose?

So, Council Vice President, Council Member, we think it's a legitimate use, and obviously we'll work closely with the department and make sure that it's set up in an appropriate way.

Thank you.

I'm curious from the author's perspective, and I know he just got here.

I want to give them a second to get settled as to why we're pulling this money from solid waste and recycling instead of from CLI.

Just had a conversation with Public Works, and this is the decision I made.

And the decision, they were okay with it.

Okay.

I mean, that's not super helpful.

This isn't a huge amount of money within a large budget.

But, I mean, there are going to be impacts to the services by any appropriation.

It's not just about the service workers running routes,

but also having administration support that they need to organize and be successful.

I'm sure that all of us have gotten calls to our offices when a pickup is missed

or there's some sort of large or unusual item that we need to ask solid waste and recycling

to come back out of their normal weekly scheduling get.

I'm a little concerned about the purpose of this board and what they can accomplish that our paid city staff couldn't.

Like what results are expected with a $25,000 investment of taxpayer dollars that are not expected from our expert city staff.

This is a tier four type of body that you're suggesting that we do.

and you're going to fund it.

What's the plan for this work group, the $25,000,

and what's the end date?

The plan is written right here.

Please look at the package and that should answer your question.

Yeah, that's why I'm asking.

I'm asking for a little bit more detail than is in the written document.

Council member, it's similar to the Safe and Thriving Communities work group that was established in the last budget cycle.

Thank you.

And, Madam Chair, I think my point here is that I do think that our city staff could probably do more with $25,000 worth of funding than a work group that we're not going to really be able to move their work forward for this small amount of money in this small amount of time.

And that's kind of my point.

Thank you.

Do you want to have, I see Deputy Commissioner Hanlon, I see Deputy, or I see Director Sexton.

Do you want any?

No, I understand that they're all right with this.

It's a fairly small appropriation, but these do have impacts.

Yep, absolutely.

I see a few other members in queue.

I will recognize Council Member Cashman, followed by Council Member Chowdhury.

Thank you so much, Chair Chugtay.

I wanted to ask Council Member Osmond if I could be made a co-author on this amendment.

Happy to do it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

And I would just like to speak in favor of it.

I do think that we're at a bit of an impasse when it comes to plans to close the HERC,

and we really need help from the community in guiding that process.

I think it would be extremely beneficial for us to have a workgroup of experts in the environmental justice world,

world, in the engineering world, in the legal sphere to help us devise strategies to really

get to zero waste.

And I also want to add that it's my preference, and you'll see in budget amendment number

six, that we allocate any new funding that comes from our franchise fees directly towards

efforts that lower energy bills.

And so that's why it was important for me that this money didn't come from money generated by franchise fees.

It's very important to me that our CLI is to be dedicated completely as much as possible towards efforts that lower energy bills.

And zero waste efforts do not lower energy bills.

And so I think it's more appropriate that we appropriate this money through the Public Works Solid Waste Budget than to be taking from the CLI.

And I would like to be any new money that comes into the CLI going forward.

It would be my preference that it is dedicated towards what you see in budget amendment number six,

which is the weatherization and retrofitting and efforts to lower bills.

So that's an answer to your question on the CLI portion.

Thank you, Council Member.

Next I'll recognize Council Member Chowdry.

Thank you.

Chair Chugtai, say Chair Chugtai, right, for this committee?

Okay.

Thank you, Council Member Osmond, for bringing forward this motion.

I think this is really forward-looking for us to consider as we are going to

have to have discussions about how we are planning on our contracts with our

waste haulers, what it means for the future of the Herc, what happens to that

facility and I also wanted to ask you if I could be added as a co-author happy to do it thank you

amazing and I think I just wanted to uplift councilmember Cashman's point that it's it's

highly highly critical that the climate legacy initiative be used to bring down the amount of

energy that our communities are using so we can reduce the burden on them and

that's like a commitment that I want to make to you moving forward on this body

that I will continue to push for for new additional funding and I also wanted to

say that I think the 25,000 ongoing is a meaningful amount to start these

conversations to support a form of work group I do think we need to create a

place where we can have additional community and expert capacity in our

conversations around what we can do to expedite how we're doing zero waste work

because I personally feel like we have been a little bit late to the game

especially with the closure of the Herc and the changes that were made at the

state legislature not this previous session but the session before that so

really excited to support this today wonderful thank you very much anyone

anyone else want to get recognized seeing no further discussion on this

item, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Councilmember Payne. Aye. Wansley. Aye.

Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Osmond. Aye. Cashman. Aye. Jenkins. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Chowdhury. Aye.

Palisano. Aye. Vice Chair Kosky. Aye. Chair Chukhtay. Aye. That is 12 ayes. That motion carries.

Next up is amendment number five.

This amendment is offered by Council Member Wansley.

Council Member Wansley, will you please introduce your amendment and make a motion?

Thank you, CVEP Chuck Tai.

So this budget amendment restores the original council allocation made during this 2024 budget markup session regarding sidewalk plowing pilots.

The mayor's proposed budget essentially cut the additional funding that council made to Public Works to implement several pilots to improve winter walkability on sidewalks.

Prior to the mayor's proposed cuts, I learned in January of this year that Public Works made an operational budget cut to the program in response to budget amendments.

They shared, and by they, the administration, that they believed that they could still implement a successful pilot initiative, even though $200,000 of it was shifted away from the program.

And I was pleased to hear, and despite of the significant cut made, that the scaled-down version of the pilots were successful and significantly helped the public.

According to staff's own reports, these pilots were able to support clearing sidewalks of over 17 miles and over 900 addresses.

Feedback that I heard immediately after the Public Works presentation on the 2024 through 2025 pilot program

was that there was still significant interest in better understanding what a fully scaled out pilot program

with the original appropriation that council made, what that will look like and the impacts that it will have,

especially in areas located around the pedestrian priority network.

In 2024, it cost the city nearly $7 million to clear road raids.

If the city is actually serious about increasing winter walkability,

then we must invest dollars to get sidewalks clear as well.

We need to be scaling up different strategies and fully restore this original mount for sidewalk plowing pilots

can help us understand how far this money can go

and allow us to have access to additional information

on how we can be strategically investing

in winter walkability in the future.

So with that, I will move this motion for approval

and ask for a second.

Second.

Wonderful.

Any discussion on the sidewalk plowing amendment?

I will recognize Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

and wanted to ask the author which of the three pilots this would go towards

or if it would go towards all three pilots.

It goes to all three pilots.

Okay.

And my second question is then at what point does this become a program

and not a pilot program?

I think is there a vision around moving into this is a formal operational program

being implemented by Public Works and not just being piloted?

So from my understanding, that is an operational decision all council can do based off of feedback in the past from PMI.

They usually recommend a window of pilot testing.

Originally, we allocated a preparation for two years.

That was cut.

So again, we've never seen the fully rollout of the pilot itself for the full two years.

So your other question in terms of when will it transcend from pilot to full absorption into the general fund and into general programming,

that would be decided once the pilot is completed, which it has not been.

Okay. And do we have a sense of whether all three pilot programs have been, like, equally successful,

or if there is one that really stands out as having the best impact on the safety of our sidewalks?

Yeah, Council Member Cashman, one, I have no interest in pinning good programs against each other,

and you sit on the committee where Public Works literally did a presentation on this matter

and cited the good outcomes of all of the initiatives that's included in this pilot.

And that's where we put information from into the narrative piece.

So they've shared, all three have been actually successful community members all across the city,

have been eager in receiving these services, and they want to see more.

And this is why we're doing the restoration.

Yeah, I guess, and I obviously chair the committee where we heard that report.

but I do want to understand the programmatic plan for integrating this.

And I'm going to vote for this today,

but it's my preference that we identify which of the pilots has been most

successful and consolidate the resources into one that can deliver an even

bigger impact with an economy of scale.

But again,

that would be a question for public works to determine in the rollout of this

money.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmisano.

Chugtai, we have heard, I have heard over and over again from residents that they want us to focus on core city services.

This isn't just residents from my ward, but all over the city.

And also from businesses and commercial properties and visitors, too.

This appropriation comes directly from the snow and ice control budget.

What is more basic than removing snow from our streets?

I have not supported this in the past, and I cannot support this now.

An appropriation or an earmark is a cut.

It is a cut to other city services.

A $600,000 appropriation within TMR, Transportation Maintenance and Repair,

will undoubtedly mean a decrease or a slowdown in pre-treating,

in snow removal from streets and bike lanes, from corner clearance,

from pedestrian refuge, from other things.

It will mean a decrease in staffing from transportation, maintenance, and repair,

so much so that staff from other public works divisions will have to help out in emergencies

if they are available.

So running a snow removal process on hoping enough people are available

is really not the way to do things.

I guess I would like to call up Director Sexton for this one

to ask how this will impact core city services.

Um, as he does, I will offer this that last night there was a, there was a

existing water main break in my ward that is currently flooding a brand new

E line station due to have a grand opening on Saturday.

Um, TMR is who the water department was calling this morning to ask, could they

go out and remediate ice?

We all have these kinds of things that happen as one off needs in our ward.

And we do need TMR staff to be available for them to be staffed up and to be able to respond in these kinds of, you know, unforeseen accidents that happen every single day.

Director Sexton, I'm curious exactly how this appropriation will impact core city services.

Welcome, Director. Please begin by introducing yourself.

Yeah, thanks. Tim Sexton, Public Works Director.

Chair Chuck Dye and Council Member Paul Mazzano.

You know, the pilot, we've really only had just one full winter snow season for the pilot.

What we found last year was the most successful approach was,

the most cost-effective approach was really giving grants to neighborhood organizations,

had relationships with their neighbors, could help support them through the plowing,

excuse me, the sidewalk clearing, in addition to the work that we do for corner and intersection clearing already.

your question about the impacts to services,

some of this work, we're estimating about three

transportation, maintenance, and repair staff

would need to be reallocated from other work

to do this work that is typically done by property owners

or neighborhood organizations, or they can contract this out.

So losing three staff, in addition to some of the other amendments

that are brought forward today that would further reduce transportation, maintenance, and repair staff

will slow down our ability to respond to things like you brought up, emergencies,

along with delaying and reducing the level of service for things like snow clearing in the winter.

I will say that our idea behind this would be to reallocate existing staff versus hiring new

because these are part-time positions only needed in the winter, and that makes it further complicates the situation

because not all staff want to do this kind of work.

But it also makes it a little hard to reallocate folks.

But that's our thought right now.

It's hard to say specifically what that level of service reduction would be

because so many of our public service workers do a lot of different things in the winter

that all relate to snow clearing in different ways.

Thank you.

The pedestrian priority network,

my understanding is it's mostly downtown.

It consists of commercial building owners

who tend to be very compliant with sidewalk clearing rules.

Is that right?

Am I wrong?

Sure, Chuck Tai, Council Member Palmazano.

We have 20 to 30 miles of pedestrian priority network

around the city.

So while there is significant amount

sort of in the downtown core area, it does extend throughout the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Next we have council member Vita.

Thank you, chair.

My question was for director Sexton.

I just wanted to make sure I heard what you said correctly.

Was it that the program with the snowplow and removal,

I know we have someone in Ward 4 who works with Public Works on helping with the seniors

or people with disabilities getting their snow removed or help with yard work sometimes

in the fall and in the spring.

But did you say that those programs are working better, like when you work with the neighborhood

organizations to have the removal, then is that working basically?

CHAIRMAN BRYANTLEY Yeah.

Sure, Chuck Tai, Council Member Vita.

What we found, we've only had one year of the pilot,

so I appreciate the earlier conversation about the pilot

and when it becomes a full program.

Because of limited snow the last two winters,

I think really last year was our first full rollout.

What we found was it was very cost-effective

to work with neighborhood organizations

to give them grants,

sort of low-burding grants to neighborhood organizations

so that they could figure out the way to clear the snow for neighbors, seniors, people with disabilities, and others who struggle to clear the sidewalks.

They know them.

They have, you know, we provided them with equipment and other things that they could use the grants for.

We found that was very cost effective.

And the neighborhood organizations that we worked with really appreciated that because it further reinforced, like, the role of neighborhood organizations in the community.

And so there was a lot of advantage to that, and we found that it was very cost effective and effective overall.

We also did some of the other clearing work last year in a limited sense.

So the pedestrian priority network, along with some spot clearing around the city for neighbors in need.

What we found, though, was that some of that had to be done by contractors.

it was very expensive and really not scalable, at least from our initial learnings,

to do that in sort of like a spot approach around the city,

not working through the neighborhood organizations.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does.

And thank you for repeating yourself.

Okay, so I do appreciate that Council Member Wansley continues to work on this,

But I think the burden that I deal with in Ward 4 is more around what we're doing in the pilot with the neighborhood organizations,

having folks reach out to people who requested through my office or through their neighborhood groups or through 311 that they're requesting assistance.

And typically what we work on is, I mean, probably for the entire Northside is folks are getting citations

or someone is coming to the door saying, hey, can you clear your walkway?

And they say, I'm not able to.

So if there's not a neighbor there that can help on those blocks,

then we send out the Northside Bulldogs

or we send out McKinley Neighborhood Association to help those neighbors.

And so I want to make sure that we continue to fund that

and that we have these positions to help in those larger scale matters that may be removed.

So I personally have never had anyone ask me for municipal snow plowing, but I have had someone ask me for someone to come over and clear their sidewalk or, you know, cut their grass because they don't want to get citations from the city of Minneapolis.

So thank you for the work, the pilot that you've done this far.

And I'm hoping that we can develop a bigger program, a more sustainable program in years to come.

And I think that's what's most needed in my ward.

So I appreciate you all committing to that work and continuing to do it.

Thank you.

Next, I don't see.

Oh, next I'll recognize Council Member Wansley, followed by Council Member Chowdhury.

Yeah.

Thank you, CVP.

checked tight. I just wanted to offer a little bit more context around the administration's

response around cost effectiveness. So just reiterating, before the program was ever fully

committed, the administration made a $200,000 cut to it, which limited what you could do

with the pilots itself. So it did force a container of cost effectiveness because you

were short $200,000 and had to use as a baseline for how to actually administer the three components

of the pilots. So we, once again, have never seen as highlighted how this program will look like

with it being fully rolled out because there were cuts made before it was even implemented.

I also want to emphasize this dynamic around service impacts or service delivery, especially

we learned this in response to the lighting dynamic. And in that, we learned we have financial

policies that actually gives the administration, also specifically key departments like public

works, the ability to access funds when it relates to service delivery. And again, the case example

was when we saw an issue of need for lighting, we saw the administration be able to move a million

dollars to meet that core service delivery. And our financial policies essentially allows the

administration access to those dollars when core delivery services are experiencing gaps and there

is a need for moving of funding. And we've seen them utilize that even just this past year alone.

So this idea that we would just be going without core services, we have financial policies that

actually prevents those things from happening. So I at least wanted to offer that context.

And again, I don't think I officially moved this motion for approval.

Oh, I did.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, just making sure.

And I did get a second on it.

Correct.

Awesome.

All right.

That's it.

Thank you.

And Council Member Chaudry.

Thanks, Chair.

I had a question for Director Sexton as well.

Thank you so much for answering our questions today.

I wanted to just understand with the current proposal and the proposed budget before we amend it,

the cuts that are made to the snow plowing pilots, what program impacts would happen?

What would we lose?

What would go away?

Yeah.

Chair, talk to I.

Councilmember Chowdhury.

What we found last year in that first year was that the first full year of the pilot was that these grants to the neighborhood organizations were highly effective.

So we proposed to expand those and learn to make sure that they continue to be effective one year, especially with limited snow.

It doesn't give us extreme confidence about what things will look like moving forward.

So the proposal was to really just focus then on expanding the grants to neighborhood organizations, along with continuing to provide, through a snow coordinator position, assistance for renters who are having trouble with the property owners who might not be clearing the snow, connecting people with contract services or connecting individuals with their neighborhood organizations.

So providing that like communications and outreach resource, because a lot of people just don't know that, say, their neighborhood org is helping or that there's a Snow Angel program, even outside of those neighborhood organizations who are receiving grants, where it connects neighbors with neighbors.

So that communications resource is really important, along with managing those grants.

But the short answer is, this year the proposal was to focus on expanding the neighborhood grant program because we found it so successful.

And not doing the rest, the snow ambassadors or the other city staffed work of snow and sidewalk clearing.

Okay, so the proposal would cut those portions of it.

Okay, got it.

That's helpful to understand.

That's my only question.

I think for me, the thing that feels really important is the fact that we did not get a chance to execute a successful full pilot without, one, the impacts of the snow season and then also doing this for the next two years.

I will say I have had constituents reach out to me that live outside of the pedestrian priority network,

that live within the pedestrian priority network,

that routinely reach out about real-life impacts that happen when they get snowed in

and they're not able to shovel, and these are usually my constituents with disabilities

who rely on their sidewalks, also sidewalks being cleared to get to transit,

all these different things.

So they essentially get snowed in.

And that's a real-life emergency for them.

And I am in constant conversations.

I would say that we have, like, four emergent snow conversations

that have just come up with the latest snowfall.

So I would, of course, like to see the Neighborhood Organization Program expand.

I got a request from the Sandish Erickson Neighborhood Organization

to see if they could do a program like this

because they saw Whittier Alliance post about it.

but there's only so much neighborhood organizations can do.

And so kind of seeing out what are the best tools for the next few years,

especially this year, because we're expecting a polar vortex,

which means snow, and it's snowing today.

So I'll be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

I will next recognize Vice Chair Kosky.

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

I just would like to clarify, what is the total that's currently in the budget then for the grants program for neighborhood organizations?

Oh, it is approximately $100,000.

And is that, so $100,000, and is that what was utilized last year, or is that what was...

I'm sorry.

Yeah, Chair Chuck Dye, Vice Chair Kosky.

We used less than that last year, and that was because of the grants.

We weren't issuing as many grants last year, and so this is actually an increase, I believe,

of what was spent last year to focus on expanding that work for the Neighborhood Association grants.

Okay, so we have currently, without making any amendments, we have $100,000 in the budget

for the Neighborhood Organization Grants Program portion of the pilots?

It's approximately, I think it's between $75,000 and $100,000.

Okay.

And then this might be a question to you or possibly to the author.

My understanding is that this amendment is an additional almost $600,000,

but for all three of the pilots.

So it was an increase to even that amount in the grant

to the Grant Neighborhood Program as well?

Is that what your intention was?

From my understanding, this is also inclusive.

So, because it was always the full amount.

This was the original appropriation based off of Public Works numbers, the 595.

So, this is inclusive of their numbers, and I'm assuming the absorption of what they've

allocated.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I am not seeing anyone else in queue.

So I will ask the clerk to call the roll on amendment number seven.

Sorry, amendment number five.

Sidewalk plowing pilots.

Misspoke.

Five.

Council Member Payne.

Aye.

Wansley.

Aye.

Rainville.

No.

Vita.

No.

Osmond.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Jenkins.

Nay.

Chavez.

Aye.

Chowdhury. Aye.

Palmisano. No.

Vice Chair Kosky. Aye.

Chair Chugtay. Aye.

That is eight ayes and four nays.

That motion carries.

We will next move to amendment number six.

This is a revised amendment as well in yellow.

It is the franchise fees allocation offered by Council Member Cashman.

I will recognize her for presenting this amendment and making a motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment earmarks the estimated $4 million that we will receive if the franchise fee ordinances pass next Thursday.

and the language is written with a contingency for that and the reason that i decided to craft this

and earmark that money towards weatherization and retrofitting is exactly because of the

comments we've been receiving from the public and 60 plus people came to our public hearing on those

ordinances and talked about how important it is that we increase the amount of money that we have

to deliver weatherization and retrofitting projects for our communities, especially the

lower income communities who live in EJ neighborhoods and live within the north side and south side

green zones. These programs have a huge return on investment and are a really important way for us

to address one of our top goals in our climate equity plan, which is reducing energy burden.

And so the amendment that you see before you is to allocate that new money that comes in through

the franchise fees for the programs that will directly lower energy costs for energy burdened

neighbors in our city. And the amount that comes in is not precise. We can't predict exactly how

much money will come in, but we've done our best to estimate that and incorporate the fact that

the date of implementation will be April 1st for those ordinances. The new franchise fee ordinances

are expected to bring in five million per year but because they won't go into effect until april we

prorated it brought it down to four million dollars and then we also lowered it to incorporate

council member vita's amendment for energy assistance and i will move approval of this

amendment is there a second um we have a proper motion on franchise fees allocation is there any

discussion from colleagues i will recognize council member jenkins followed by council member palma

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I guess my concern with this and certainly we need to continue to try to address cost burden households with utility costs.

But it just feels like we're not really, these programs aren't going to those low-income homes.

It's been really a challenge to get those projects done.

And so, you know, why continue to spend more money until we figure out how we can make sure that we are addressing green zones on the north side and the south side and really ensuring that those projects are being funded?

Thank you.

Just a comment.

Gotcha.

Next, I'll recognize Council Member Palmisano.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I sit with those comments from Council Member Jenkins, but mostly per some prior comments, I'd like to point out that there are eight goals of the Climate Legacy Initiative.

Energy efficiency is one of them.

The other seven are carbon neutrality, emissions reduction, green jobs and training, community investment, clean energy, trees, and sustainable infrastructure.

We don't get to, as council members, go backwards and say there's just one, or that we're only going to focus on one that we like.

We need to protect the goals of the program, all of them, to make meaningful progress here.

Council Member Vita's amendment prior went directly to whom is getting impacted by increased franchise fees.

The most.

Her amendment was about how to refund or help those who are impacted the most by rising energy costs.

That was a good amendment from my perspective.

This one does go toward one of the goals.

This isn't about whether or not we are passing an increased franchise fee.

It's about once we do, how we will program it.

So I am receptive to those who've been speaking up about it, and I am inclined to program it and make more progress in this area.

But here's what's important to me to support it.

Can you confirm for me that this earmark is going to the program itself, to the function of weatherization, and not to any specific contractor or vendor or community group?

And this is a question, I think, to the author.

Madam Chair.

Happy to answer this question.

and first wanted to clarify that weatherizing and retrofitting homes addresses almost every single

one of the climate goals that you listed, including reducing greenhouse gases, supporting our workforce,

et cetera. And then you'll see in the amendment that this earmark would specifically fund the

following programs within the green cost share umbrella. Healthy Homes Weatherization Program,

Centerpoint Hero Program, and City Bonus Rebates, Cooperative Energy Futures, Centerpoint Low

income rental program plus city rebates through Frontier Energy, multifamily building efficiency

program, and the city's green cost share program that is 4D affordable housing focused. So our city

staff have done a really great job in the last couple of years creating an umbrella to make

these programs as effective as possible so that anyone who applies can find the pathway that best

suits their home and their building and their neighborhood's needs. Thank you for answering the

I was concerned that there were several vendors and groups specifically listed

in the supporting materials and we were going to be limiting it to those groups.

So I just want to be clear here.

Our expert city staff, as you mentioned, are the ones who should be determining

which programs within Green Cross Share are prioritized for extra funding

and assigning contracts and work through their vetted RFPs,

not us directing who specifically will get funding.

My second or last question is, is I'm not sure

either for you, because you've been deeply involved in this work, and I appreciate it,

or perhaps Director Hanlon, with increased funds, is it likely that we will need to bring

on additional vendors to do this kind of work?

This is a large amount of money in a short amount of time.

I would ask that Deputy Commissioner Hanlon come in to answer that question.

Thank you and welcome Director Hanlon.

CHAIR CHUGTII, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT SOME OF THE NAMES THAT

WERE MENTIONED IN THIS AMENDMENT CAME FROM A MEMO THAT WE HAD SENT BACK OF EXISTING

CONTRACTORS AND PARTNERS THAT WE WORK WITH TO GET THIS MONEY OUT.

I WOULD SAY IN BRINGING ON A FUND OF THIS AMOUNT, WE WOULD BE SCALING UP THE CONTRACTS

WITH THOSE VENDORS, BUT IT WOULD BE A LOT OF PROGRAM DOLLARS TO GET OUT THE DOORS.

would also be open to working with new partners to address, especially in areas of the north

side green zone, south side green zones, and with low income members.

Thank you. This is really helpful context.

Wonderful. Thank you. Next, I will recognize Vice Chair Kosky.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Deputy Commissioner Hanlon. Sorry. Come on back. I did hear

Councilmember Jenkins comments just about you know who was being serviced and

I know that you gave a presentation and not all of us are in some of the

committees and so I'm wondering if you could just lay out for us like what

these programs and who has been I know you had some concerns maybe of perhaps

we weren't targeting and our green zones and I'm just wondering if you could

speak to that because I know you guys presented some very specific numbers for

that and want to make sure that that's clear for the public. Sure. Sure. Chugtai, Councilmember

Kosky, Councilmember Jenkins. So there was a letter that went out from our commissioner,

Commissioner Chaplin, just talking about some of the complexity around this. There are many different

EJ, environmental justice tools that are out there, one from the Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency. We have our green zones. There are Met Council areas of concentrated poverty. And so

there are different ways to look at some of this data, and I think that's where some of the confusion

around this comes from. The Climate Legacy Initiative currently uses green zones as a

priority, north side green zone, south side green zone, and low income properties, and any

organization that is serving people in low income situations. And so about 60% of the funding goes

to those, what we are currently calling our environmental justice category. So about 60%

of the funds go into those categories as we're currently set up. Our Director of Climate Equity

Action is currently working with our enterprise partners and also with external partners through

our Climate Legacy Roundtable to have further really intentional discussions around this in

how we are defining environmental justice investments. But currently as the program

is set up, it's around 60% of the funds go to that definition. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, I will recognize Councilmember Osman.

I'll speak quick. I support this, and I had the privilege of attending some of the community engagements

some of these organizations did to explain what's happening.

And these organizations are from the community. They speak community language.

They explain it better.

and just with the director that just spoke.

I had the opportunity to just be there,

and it was just really great information.

I encourage any council members to invite those community organizations

that are doing wonderful work and weatherizing and helping low-income families.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, I'm not seeing any further discussion, so I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Member Payne. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Osmond. Aye. Cashman. Aye. Jenkins. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Chaudhry. Aye. Tomasano. Aye. Vice Chair Kosky. Aye. Chair Chugtay. Aye.

That is 12 ayes.

That motion carries.

We will now move to, excuse me, we will now move to amendment number seven.

After we started this meeting, we have the clerks bring by an amended version of this document.

So your binder will have a white sheet, whereas the one we are going to be looking at is the yellow one.

This amendment is related to traffic safety for all.

It is offered by Councilmember Wansley.

I will recognize Councilmember Wansley to introduce her amendment and make a motion.

Thank you, CVP Chaktai.

So the neighborhood traffic calming program, which this amendment makes appropriations to,

continues to be a popular program and has been widely acclaimed by residents to help improve

safety conditions among city streets. And we also have been made aware time and time again that its

current funding levels is unable to meet the demand of this program. Last year, in response

to a legislative directed by council, Public Works shared that it would be an estimated $15

million cost to address all the potential projects just for 2025 alone. And fully completing

eligible projects has been a multi-year effort by council, and this additional funding will

help continue that work. The city has over 16,000 sidewalk corners, many of which have not been

reconstructed, so they are deficient with respect to current ADA design standards. This amendment

will put $2.3 million of investments into ADA accessibility and will fund the systemic

replacement of around 100 deficient pedestrian ramps per year. There is also a modest increase

to the protected bikeways program by a one-time allocation of $700,000 and then a one-time

increase of $2.5 million for traffic safety improvements, which will improve the overall

traffic safety for our city's roadways. These categories were selected based on

need as well as based on conversations with CLIC members as well. I sourced the

funding for this proposed amendment from the Public Safety, Wellness, and

Training Center which has allocated about 5.5 million dollars in the

proposed mayor's budget. I will start off by saying simply that this body

should not approve this project because the administration chose to commit the city to a

$24 million building before getting council approval and funding. The administration incorporating

this project into the settlement agreement was an overreach, an attempt to bypass our budget

authority as council members. And the administration has cited the settlement agreement as requiring

the need for this facility, and that is just simply not factual. There was no requirement in the

settlement agreement for a wellness and training center, like the capital request implies in its

proposal. The settlement agreement that council voted for required the completion of a facility

assessment, and that has been done. The administration chose to make operational

decisions and incorporate them into the agreement with Alefa without going through the city's proper

channels and processes to ensure that what they were submitting to Alefa was actually accurate

information and did get council approval. And we should not commit to a $24 million building to

help the administration essentially save face. They should take accountability and work through

the correct process on this, as well as on other settlement programs that they're trying to

negotiate with the LEFA to advance compliance with the settlement agreement. But that does not mean

the council is a rubber stamp on those initiatives when they want to bypass those processes.

And this is a time to ensure that those processes are being enforced.

Even outside of improper process by the administration, I do not think this or at this time this funding is appropriate.

This summer, council approved over $1 million contract for wellness services for our NPD officers.

Wellness and training will also be incorporated into all the future community safety centers.

And this was stated and included in the public safety facilities presentation by the Office of Community Safety in response to a legislative directive that council passed just last year.

The training site that currently is being rented at an NPS facility that is being proposed as a site, again, does not require us to purchase a whole new facility.

According to the city's own NPD facility assessment, there are several additional ways to meet the training spaces requirement of the settlement agreement, such as utilizing cross-jurisdictional partnerships and agreements.

NPD actually already does this with some of their other operational needs, so there is no reason why the training center could not be also another opportunity to work and share the costs with other law enforcement agencies who already have resources in place to fulfill training needs.

The administration has the opportunity to come back to council next year with a better fleshed out proposal and plan for this body to consider.

But for now, this is a large investment with too many unanswered questions that currently sidesteps the council's budget processes.

And in light of that, these dollars are better invested in things that we do know will have a measurable benefit for the public,

like making investments into our traffic calming program that will ensure dozens more projects will be completed in 2026.

So with that, I will motion this amendment for approval and ask for a second.

Council Member Wansley has moved approval on traffic safety for all. Is there a second?

We have a proper motion before us. Colleagues, are there any questions or discussion?

I will recognize Council Member Rainville.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm wondering, this is a very strong statement by a council member,

and I'm wondering if someone from the administration can come up.

Perhaps is Jared here?

I can't see with the pillar to just talk.

Could you just address how the settlement agreement impacts this amendment or vice versa?

And then I do have one other question after that.

Thank you.

Mr. Jeffries, if you will first begin by introducing yourself.

Yes, thank you Chair Shugtai, Councilmember Rainville.

I am Jared Jeffries, I'm the Deputy Commissioner of Community Safety for the City of Minneapolis.

Councilmember Rainville, to answer your question, the MDHR settlement agreement requires a training assessment, a facilities assessment, several other assessments that were completed between 2023 and 2024.

There were several facilities assessments that were done that said our current facility for MPD training, the SOC, the Strategic Operations Center, was insufficient to meet our training needs for what a modern police agency really needs to have.

And if I can just stop you there, so for the public, the SOC is that old elementary school that's been retrofitted for this need?

Correct. The city currently leases or rents.

In addition to just the facilities assessments that we had to complete and gave recommendations to the city, both the MDHR settlement agreement and the consent decree provisions that we agreed to with the previous Department of Justice all have extensive training and wellness requirements that really put a significant onus on the city to provide these resources to our officers and to our staff.

I mean, it's hundreds of hours of training.

It is significant wellness resources above what we supply to them right now.

And inherent in that, we have to provide space for these resources and training to actually occur.

As far as what is in the settlement agreement and kind of how we got there,

I would defer to the city attorney's office on really what that means and the weight of that.

that, but I'm happy to answer further questions on it, though, too.

Well, I don't know if you could answer this or perhaps the city attorney, but does this

sidestep the council agenda?

Madam city attorney, go ahead.

Yeah, council vice president, council members.

So let me kind of just walk back a little bit and explain what the settlement agreement

requires.

So the settlement agreement required us to do both a training assessment and a facilities

assessment.

In as Deputy Commissioner identified, both of those assessments actually found serious

deficiencies with the existing facility and the facilities assessment recommended that

a new training facility be created.

The settlement agreement also requires us to provide a facilities plan which had to

be approved by Alefa.

So we created that facility's plan with the recommendation that a new facility be brought.

Now, Alifa approved that, but of course, the next step in the process then is to go to

CLIC, which happened, and then to come to the City Council for ultimate budget approval.

So I would argue we did not do a wrong process here.

we followed the process, it wouldn't make sense to have a proposal come to the City

Council for Budgetary Authority that Alefa didn't approve, right? I mean, this is part

of this is we present something to Alefa, they say yes, this would satisfy the terms

of the agreement. If they say no, then we're not going to waste your time. If they say

yes, then we come to you for Budgetary Authority, which is why this was in the Mayor's budget.

If the council were to not do the appropriation and not allow for us to go forward with this

new construction, then we would have to go back to Alefa, come up with a different proposal

that would try to satisfy the requirements for, again, wellness and training that are

all in the settlement agreement and see if Alefa would approve something else.

the deficiencies and given all of the requirements for, again, scenario-based training, all of

these wellness requirements, I don't know whether Alefa would find some other option to satisfy

the requirements in the settlement agreement. If that answers your questions.

It does. Thank you. Would you like to add anything, Mr. Jeffries?

I'll just say the need for this, I know the question was posed in regards to the settlement agreement.

There are needs beyond just the police department that are being unmet as far as wellness and training needs.

That goes for our fire department, for our 911 department.

Virtually all of our community safety departments have needs when it comes to space for training and wellness

that we currently are unable to meet.

Okay, thank you.

So I'm going to be voting no on this.

We all want our police department to improve

as well as the continued effort for all the public safety.

And we saw how good the training should be, can be,

with the annunciation shooting.

Within four minutes of the call, we had 911 responders on.

Within 14 minutes, we had those children,

those horribly injured children,

on their way to hospitals to get fixed.

And I can't imagine what it's like for a firefighter or a 911 operator or a police officer to be involved with that in the after effects for their mental wellness.

So I think we should stick to the course, listen to Alefa, and continue with improved training for our police department.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we've got the clerk.

I just was asking if Council Member Wansley could restate our motion for clarity.

We have one that was printed as the revised copy, but then we were noted by your staff

there might be a change.

So I want to make sure we captured it correctly.

The change was captured in the revised motion, so I'm moving approval of the revised one.

But in the revised motion that we passed out, it says on the first item that it's 700,000,

and your staff tells us it's 720,000.

So I want to make sure that we have that correctly.

Thank you.

Sorry, there was a typo.

So that's the motion?

Mm-hmm.

720.

Okay, thank you.

720, thank you.

Wonderful.

Okay.

With that, next we're going to move to Council Member Vita, followed by Council Member Vita,

followed by Council Member Wansley.

Thank you, Chair.

So I don't think I have a question yet,

but just a few comments.

The training facility is in Ward 4.

It's at a very old school in a residential neighborhood,

like literally across the street from people's homes,

and I get lots of complaints from the people,

not about police but noise complaints,

the usage of some things.

I mean, mostly it's noise complaints.

It's congested traffic

because there's a lot of vehicles over there, those sorts of things.

And I would say, like, what I hear from people the most is they want officers to be trained well.

Like, people see that as an opportunity for us to have a better police department.

And I think officer wellness just goes right along with that.

And I know, like, wellness for me does matter.

Facilities does matter.

I feel good when I go to my house and it's spotless clean or it's being used in a way that I need it the most.

or you know so I really do think that we have to look at this as an opportunity to make our

department better and not as like a bad thing this is an investment in a department that we

want to be better a part of that is facilities a part of that is training some of the conversations

I've had you know the fourth precinct has the range there and there's been conversations about

if the range will move to this training facility and out of the fourth precinct,

and if the fourth precinct actual building will be given back to community

because it was a community center back in the day.

So there's just been a lot of conversations in North Minneapolis

about a better training facility for the police department,

and that does not include this old school on 42nd and Bryant,

I think it's where it is.

And if you've ever been there, you can see that it's outdated and that the facility definitely,

it doesn't fit the needs for policing right now.

And it definitely doesn't fit the needs for neighbors who live across the street

and people who are just in the community and want to see something different in that space,

in that park space, in that area altogether.

Thank you. Next we've got... Actually, I'm going to pause here just really quick. Finance

just has caught a minor error with that revision. So I'm going to invite Director DeCenza up

and just walk through the importance of getting a balanced item and how the amendment before

us, as it is written, is balanced and correct and no further changes are needed on it.

Thank you, Chair Chugtai.

Yes, the revision that we just heard about would throw this off balance.

So we need to make sure that if we're cutting $5.5 million from one project, the addition amount is $5.5.

So $700K plus $2.5 million plus $2.3 million will balance, but $770 will not.

So actually, Michael, can you just pull the one that you are dropping off right now?

You take that one back because what Director Descente is describing is that it's incorrect

and not balanced.

For clarity, Madam Chair, what we read into the record was for line item one BIK 28 project,

we were told that's 720,000.

The second line item, TRO 22, is 2.5 million and three, PV 104, is 2.3 million.

Okay.

Give us just one second.

700 is correct.

It should just be 700 even.

Yes.

Yes, so take this one back that you dropped off.

It should be 700 even.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Michael.

All right.

We're going to return back to the queue.

I know there's plenty of discussion that is still left on this item.

So for clarity, for clarity, the motion is

Decreasing the entire budget that is allocated for 2026 for the Public Safety Wellness Center

by $5.5 million.

And then taking that $5.5 million and redistributing it among three other existing capital programs.

Protected bikeways gets a $700,000 increase.

Safety Improvement Supplemental, that is where neighborhood traffic calming is now going to live,

is $2.5 million. ADA Ramp Replacement Program Supplemental gets $2.3 million, which adds up to

exactly $5.5 million. We're going to return to discussion. Council Member Osmond,

followed by Council Member Palmasano. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Did we skip over you?

No, I had something else I wanted to say. I will have you get back in queue.

Thank you so much.

And this question is for the staff or anyone who can answer.

I'm learning as we go.

This training facility that's coming up that we're projecting to build, how much is it going to cost?

Does anybody know what this training facility is going to cost?

How many millions of dollars is that going to cost?

Through the Chair, Councilmember Osmond, currently in the budget for the capital improvement

budget, we have $5.5 million slated for 2026, and then $8 million in 2027, $8 million in

2028.

So those are the three years of funding that are proposed.

And when will this plan to get built?

What year is it going to try and get built?

Trish Agday, Council Member Osmond.

So just one quick thing before I go into the timeline.

So I'll note that this was on the city's state capital projects list and was at the top.

We asked in our application to the state for $19 million.

And so as part of that request process, that $19 million is actually half of the total anticipated cost.

So the total anticipated cost would be $38 million, with us requesting $19 million from the state.

And so what I don't know, I can't remember if Director DeCenza's sums add up to that,

but that's the most recent calculations.

To answer your question about timeline, I think this is a project that the administration

would like to move as quickly as possible on because of all of the significant training

and wellness needs in the settlement agreement and in the consent decree and all the needs I

covered for all of our departments. So what we have talked about is site acquisition, having a site

under control in probably early 2026, and then actually starting the design process in 2026

with the goal of start building end of 2026, beginning of 2027. Okay. Well, we kind of know

the process of looking for a space for third precinct, new location, that took a long time

and the investment and the time of staff. We are getting, we are renewing our third,

our precincts. I think the first precinct and the third precinct, is that an option or a way

to have a wellness or training center while we build those?

For example, third precinct, wouldn't that be smart to?

I know each precinct has some kind of wellness

where locators, people can go to gym, stuff like that.

This is not that.

This center is going to be a place where everyone,

every professional, firefighters, everyone can go to get trained.

I'm just trying to see if there's a way to include the new third precinct that's coming up,

a training facility or the new building downtown, a training facility or something similar to that.

Has that been discussed?

Councilman Rosman, thank you for your question.

Yes, it has been discussed.

So in regard to the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center,

the design for that building has been completed.

that RFP for the general contractor is out.

We will be bringing forward to council near the beginning of next year

the approval for that general contractor contract

for the 3rd Precinct for South Minneapolis Community Safety Center.

And during that, you'll all receive more information

about the design of that facility.

That facility really has always been intended,

at least as we've talked about as a city,

to be more of an operational center where community can come in and out.

And so from a purpose standpoint, it just doesn't align super well with kind of what we would like to see from a training and wellness facility.

I also want to note, too, the city has been already knowing that we were needing to build a new site,

a new location for a training wellness center as recommended by our assessments.

We've been looking at property and we are very hopeful that we'll be able to bring something to you as council early in 2026 for actual acquisition of the site.

Okay. Thank you so much.

I'm just going to state my opinion.

I think these are wonderful programs.

but also at the same time we do need to set our officers or our professional

people that are you know first responders should be able to have a

place that is welcoming that is give them the opportunity to to trained to be

able to you know be the best of the best and that will take of course a lot of

investment from the state, a lot of work and a lot of investment within the city.

So not sure when this facility will be available but I cannot support this

this motion because the looking forward I think we are making a smart decision

building this public safety and training center that we're projecting to come out.

up next few years. We just have to set our professionals to have a facility, and I look

forward to supporting that in the future, too. Thank you.

Next, I will recognize Council Member Palmisano, followed by Council Member Cashman.

Madam Chair, I get behind the concept of many of these amendments and what my colleagues

would like to do, but it will be no surprise to you that I object to the funding source of many

of them. Large cuts or appropriations within MPD or their needed facilities for unrelated projects

or initiatives are a total non-starter for me. That said, I am so floored and frustrated by this

amendment that I'm not quite sure where to start, but I promise to keep track of my time.

We know that our strategic operations center, our current training center is deficient, and this was confirmed by a mandated facilities assessment.

I have been actively working toward a new training and wellness center for years.

I was finally successful in at least getting this into the CIP in 2019, six years ago.

And I think before that, we got it on our IGR agenda for state funding potential and for state partnerships in this work.

That is a longstanding need that predates the MDHR settlement agreement and any talk of a consent decree.

This has been a defining priority of my career on the council.

So come talk to me about it when you want to remove it.

This action will result in massive delays to compliance for the settlement agreement and any consent decree.

Site acquisition, design, bonding, legislative support take a long time.

In the initial steps of this project, I put in place a long time ago.

Sending this back to the drawing board will lead to multi-year delays, meaning we'll be out of compliance with the settlement agreement timelines.

we had started off on a path to get all of those things done and fast and make these important

changes in our police department in record time. We will never get out of it, is my presumption,

if we start going down this kind of a path. Our police officers train in inadequate facilities.

They were highlighted at length in the settlement agreement mandated facilities assessment.

They also lack necessary infrastructure to provide required new trainings that we have, a lot of them.

Denying them those spaces is a failure of our own work.

In the author's analysis, Council Member Wansley states there should be a thoughtful study and plan for how all MPD-related capital projects interface together and the Safe and Thriving Communities report.

Staff created that plan. They presented it to MDHR and Alefa, who both approved it.

OCF staff presented the plan for all of their public safety-related capital projects at the September 22nd Committee of the Whole meeting in response to a legislative directive authored by Councilmember Wansley.

Staff incorporated several criteria into their design elements.

I'll quote from their presentation.

These operational priorities focus on how the city manages and implements projects to

ensure they align with the values of racial equity, community safety, sustainability,

and community engagement outlined in the Safe and Thriving Communities Plan, the Strategic

Racial and Equity Action Plan, the Climate Equity Plan, and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

They aim to guide departmental processes, staffing strategies, and work practices to

better reflect community needs, foster trust, and promote equitable outcomes across all

neighborhoods and populations. The author also notes that the settlement agreement itself does

not call for a new facility and that MDHR did not spell that out in the agreement. She's correct,

but the facility's plan that was approved by Alefa was also approved by MDHR, who are the

partners at the table for this work in all respects. This project proposal did follow

the standard click process, contrary to the author's notes. The author states throughout

her proposed cut that city channels were not followed, and that's simply not true. Our

independent evaluator approved this plan, which included MDHR feedback. It was part of a public

presentation to counsel. It was included in the mayor's proposed budget. Contrary to the

author's claims, this did go through the click process. Lastly, we recently approved our state

capital investment bill resolution which not only includes this facility but ranks it first

of our priorities that request is reliant on a financial commitment from the city to move

this project forward i've known that and worked on that for six years this amendment would require

the city to reduce its bonding ask the city needs to demonstrate that it is committing

half of the cost of this project.

I'll stop here.

Next up, I will recognize Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really need to understand a little bit more

what happened with the CLIC review of this project

because I see the CLIC's report that says

that they needed more scoping and information

regarding this project in order to include it

in their recommendation.

And when CLIC came before Budget Committee months ago,

it was not in their list of projects

but then it was added into the mayor's budget after the fact.

And I'm wondering if Budget Director Jane Desenza or someone else who staffs the CLIC can speak to the CLIC specifically,

which is a Tier 1 advisory body, if I'm correct, and is appointed to do the work of Tier 2 advisory body to the city,

is appointed to do the work of reviewing capital requests and spends hundreds of hours doing that every year,

what they had to say about this request and how they analyzed it.

Sure. Through the Chair, Council Member Cashman,

CLIC did review this project and added a comment on page 12 of their report.

I'm happy to read it.

I think it's important to note that CLIC's purview is to comment on infrastructure projects.

They are not lawyers or policy experts on what the requirements of the settlement agreement are,

but I think it's safe to say that their report, in their comments, they state that neither the underlying settlement agreement

nor the facilities condition assessment explicitly address how a new wellness center will contribute to reducing police misconduct.

So that was the nature of their disagreement.

And the mayor, in his recommended budget, had to add this back in because of the legal requirements as interpreted by our city attorney.

Okay, I'm hearing some, I understand that and I understand the click process here and

now I think I'm grappling with the differences in legal opinion around what's included in

the settlement agreement versus what Alifa says and what Alifa approved.

And I think that there are many wellness and training plans that Alifa could approve.

this isn't the only one that they would approve, including a more decentralized wellness and

training proposal to have distributed facilities throughout the city instead of one centralized,

expensive new facility.

And I'm wondering if the city attorney could speak to whether Alifa would approve such

a new plan.

Council Vice President, Council members, I don't know what Alifa will do.

What I do know is that we had a facilities assessment done by an expert which was required

by the settlement agreement, that expert recommended that we

proceed with a new facility.

So, that is what we presented to Alefa.

Alefa approved it with MDHR input as well.

So, we know for sure that if we build this new facility,

it will satisfy the requirements of the settlement agreement.

Whether there is a different option, I don't know,

But I will say that because of all of the underlying requirements in the

settlement agreement for wellness services, for all of this training that

requires scenario-based training, one of the things that the training

assessment actually pointed out is in the current location in a neighborhood,

doing scenarios would require like pretend takedowns in outdoor locations.

And that's just not conducive to the current facility when you're in a neighborhood.

So in order to actually fulfill all of those training requirements with, again,

all of the adult learning and all the scenarios,

we need a facility that's going to be able to handle that.

I think it's very unlikely, honestly, that Alifa is going to approve some other plan.

Do I know?

No.

I know what they will approve because we've already tested that.

But I have grave concerns about whether we could actually come into compliance with some other proposal.

Council Member Cashman, can I make a suggestion here?

Yeah, I have two minutes left.

Yeah.

I would like to ask you another question as well.

Go ahead.

As the chair, this facility totals $19 million.

dollars, did we not just get a report that MPD overspent their budget by 19 million dollars

this year without authorization from the city? Nearly 20 actually, yes. Nearly 20. I point that

out because we're supposed to be up here doing fiscal responsibility and, you know, making sure

that our budgets are aligned with what our policy goals are as a city and making sure that we're

appropriating money. I mean, 19 million dollars is a lot of money to spend on a new facility,

And I think if they were really serious about wanting the money for that facility, then they should have been careful with the extra 19 to 20 million dollars that they overspent this year.

Councilmember Cashman, do you want to have the city attorney actually address why?

When CLIC was struggling with wanting to make a recommendation on this item, they wanted more information, did you work with them?

Did you go to them and speak to them about the gravity of the situation if it was of such high importance?

Not if. It is of such high importance.

Yes. Council Vice President, no, I was not engaged by CLIC.

It was presented to CLIC.

I do believe that Deputy Commissioner Jeffries, though, walked them through our concerns,

and I did give legal advice to Deputy Commissioner.

Deputy Commissioner, why didn't you engage the city attorney to come and talk to CLIC?

This is of such a high gravity.

If you wanted this to be recommended by CLIC.

Yes.

Thank you for the question, Council Vice President.

So CLIC has been engaged, I think, two or three years consistently now.

And we've tried a few different iterations of presentations on why this is needed.

So this year myself and Chief O'Hara both went to present, walked them through an extensive presentation on this facility.

And I will be candid in saying we got no questions.

So to say that we went through this extensive presentation and then there was no questions,

it was really confusing for them to say we need more information and we not knowing what the more information was.

We have talked with the city attorney about in future years for any project related settlement

agreement there being city attorney office presence there, but I think as far as, I don't,

City Attorney Anderson can probably speak more clearly to what she would say to them,

but I think in large part the content would largely be the same of what we indicated,

that we are required to do certain things under the settlement agreement.

This is needed to meet the terms of settlement agreement.

Thank you, Deputy Commissioner.

Council Member Cashman's time has now expired.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize Council Member Osmond, followed by Vice Chair Kosky.

Go to the next person, Vice Chair Kosky.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this might be for Deputy Commissioner as well.

I would just like to understand a little bit, you know, going through the process of making

the decision, I hear and understand the necessity of having training, a new training facility

and wellness center. I'm just curious to know, you know, what else have we done to think

about like the redundancy of that? I mean, I understand that we're under a consent decree

and so we are, you know, highlighting this as a need, but I imagine that other jurisdictions

that are really close by are also going to be possibly needing this or want to enhance

their facilities. So I'm just curious, you know, Councilmember Cashin mentioned decentralizing

some of that, you know, training facilities, or have we talked to other cities that would also

want to partner with us where we have one, maybe it's in the city of Minneapolis, or maybe it's in

the city of Edina, and we utilize their facility or the county. So just curious to understand,

you know, when I think about, you know, Councilmember Cashin just mentioned the overspending

of our police department, but also just in general the constraints of our budget right

now. How are we thinking creatively about, you know, this is a $38 million building today,

but my guess is within a few years it'll be far more expensive than that. How can we reduce

these redundancies and be more efficient and effective with our spending?

Chair Shugtai, Vice Jarkovsky, thank you for the question. Yes, we have engaged with

neighboring jurisdictions on being able to partner with on a facility like this. In talking this

project through looking at what the city has right now, and especially with Alefa and their

technical experts who have decades of police training under their belt, one thing that has

been brought up just as we've gone through trainings is how logistically difficult it is

having different training components being in different physical locations.

So a good example of that right now, the firing range is in the fourth precinct.

That has been noted several times.

The shuffling of trainees back and forth between there and the SOC is really inconvenient,

really time consuming, and it's really not ideal.

As far as the vision for this facility really is an interdepartmental within our own city enterprise, but also interjurisdictional project.

There is certainly the opportunity to partner with jurisdictions who have similar needs as ours.

I will say one of the major considerations for us is that if there is a really great site that is within the city of Minneapolis,

that is not in a residential area, that allows for what we want it to be,

that is going to be a primary consideration in where we choose.

That is going to be preferred so that we can always have our officers going to one central location

that is able to meet these needs.

And they're not having to go out to a suburb,

use time, on-duty time, to be able to go do that.

So that is, I don't want to take up too much of your time,

Council Vice President,

but we've talked this through with ALIFA,

with several other jurisdictions,

and we believe there's great opportunity here

to be able to move forward with this project

in a collaborative way,

but also one that really fits the needs of the city.

So the discussions with other cities

or jurisdictions, you know, would that look like Minneapolis hosting essentially this

and they paying rent?

Because I imagine the training isn't happening 24-7.

I mean, there's a building that could be utilized for other hours of the day.

And so are you saying that, you know, we're fronting this initial bill

and that there would be, like, a rental process?

Or how deeply have you thought through this?

We, Council Vice, Vice Chair Kosky, I apologize.

We have had conversations internally on how this would work, how other facilities of this nature work,

and they oftentimes do work off of that kind of rent model.

I think with, I'm going to give you a little bit of an incomplete answer.

It's going to depend on where the facility is.

So if it's within the city of Minneapolis and depending on geographically where within the city of Minneapolis,

what jurisdictional partners are willing to do, like that sharing agreement, may look different.

So it could be co-ownership. It could be that rent model.

It just, we haven't been able to obviously specific, have a specific site conversation yet.

But once we get to that point, we will be able to work through more concrete details of what a partnership could look like.

Okay. And are you looking at areas outside of Minneapolis for this facility?

We have been looking at areas outside as well as inside both of us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, I'll recognize Council Member Vita followed by Council Member Chowdhury.

We've got five speakers left in queue.

Thank you, Chair.

I just, just a couple things.

You know, Council Member Cashman made the point about the overtime,

and I don't think any of us won an $18 or $19 million.

I think maybe you even said $20 million in overtime.

But I could imagine that some of this is related to poor training facilities.

If we're doing training in five different facilities with different technologies and things aren't up to par,

getting things in one centralized location makes more sense and will cut some of those costs.

I'm sure of that.

Don't know how much, but I can imagine that will happen.

The other thing is, so back in September, I think it was in Cal that we had a presentation from a legislative directive around the public safety capital projects.

And I'm getting a little confused with the back and forth around if MDHR and the LEFA approve this and, like, how this process happened.

But I thought we were told in that Cal meeting that, and I don't know who could just confirm this for me,

I just want to be clear on the information, that this project went through Alefa, went through OCS.

OCS incorporated the Safe and Thrivings Community Report and what came out of that in this,

and that it had been given to CLIC, that it went through the standard CLIC process is to my understanding.

So if someone could just come and confirm that just so that it is on the record for me,

that it went through the standard CLIC process,

that Alefa and MDHR both approved this plan back in September when we, I believe it was September,

we had a committee of the whole meeting where there was a legislative directive,

I think brought forward by Council Member Wansley that said that all of these things had happened

and we were at a place where we were moving forward with a request and going to have this training facility.

Chair Shugtai, Council Member Vita.

To answer your question about CLIC, and Director DeSinta can correct me if this is incorrect,

It was presented to CLIC. CLIC did not provide it in its recommendations to the mayor. The mayor put this facility project in his proposed budget for 2025, or for 2026, I'm sorry. So yes, it did go through the CLIC process. They didn't include it in the recommendations, but it is in the mayor's proposed budget.

As far as the process for Alefa, Alefa did approve our facilities plan, which did have us proposing that we would build a new training and wellness facility.

So they approved, and in the role that MDHR plays, MDHR consulted, provided feedback there, which Alefa takes very much into account in providing their approval or not providing their approval.

Okay. And so with that, with having, you know, went through the process with those entities, it was still said to us that the Safe and Thriving Communities Report was incorporated into the design and the infrastructure and other things also, right?

That is correct, Councilmember Vita. As part of the, in being able to actually look for a site, we needed to know what were the functions that we really needed this facility be able to do.

And as part of that functionality list that we built out, we incorporated the needs, the operational considerations of all of our community safety departments, which is something that the Safe and Thriving Communities Report very much recommends.

Oh, so it was every department in community safety.

Correct.

All their needs were incorporated through that report.

Okay, thank you.

I just, I think it's starting to be confusing on what processes things went through, what didn't, who has the authority to do what.

There's been a lot of questions around, a lot of comments around who has the authority and doesn't have the authority to do things.

And I really thought we had wrapped this up back in September in the Cal meeting when we had the legislative directive presented to us on the comprehensive plan for all the public safety capital projects.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize Council Member Chowdhury, followed by Council Member Palmisano.

Thank you so much, Chair Chugtay.

First I'll just speak to what this is funding.

This is one of our budget amendments that really looks at disability justice.

The ADA ramp program is extremely important for us to complete.

And us moving ahead on it and making sure that we complete it means that we can move

into the sidewalk accessibility inventory program, which has long been an issue for

our constituents with varying mobility issues, issues with vision, other disabilities where

they've had issues on the right of way.

And so I really want to lift that up.

And this is also an item that we continuously advocate for in our federal legislative agenda,

and we advocate for this at the state legislature.

So what we're requesting to fund is a really critical need.

And also traffic safety improvements continue to be a top priority of constituents all throughout

our offices as has been shared these last two years in this term.

That for several council members they hear from their constituents and for them it is

about a life or death experience.

And I just really wanted to make sure to uplift the point about what we are funding here and

why that matters.

In terms of the source, this conversation has been extremely clarifying for me in the

sense that usually we have the study sessions and the deeper conversations before we say

go ahead on a multimillion dollar budget allocation.

And what I feel like we did today for our short period of time in budget in the 11th

I think that the last month of our was a study session when we should have had these opportunities

together before. And I would encourage council members that are supportive of this item to not

just wait for their colleagues to come to them if it is a priority for them to be leaders and

conduct a study session, conduct briefings, bring people together this next calendar year

And I also state we have made a significant move in making this a

priority in our legislative agenda.

Even given the circumstances that we did not have a lot of the

information that we are receiving today.

We said, yeah, we will pass this forward and we will make this a

top priority on our legislative agenda.

And we will lobby for it and use our city staff and honestly my

time as IGR chair to let this be a priority.

And we will be doing this for this to go before the click again and

I will also share that there is a lot of confusion or lack of information or questions not only

among CLCC members, not only among council members, but also among our legislative delegation.

I have received several questions asking what we have asked today.

Is this required by MDHR?

Is this a part of the settlement agreement?

This doesn't feel clear.

Is this a direct requirement?

This doesn't feel clear.

Is this a direct requirement?

And what we have come to understand today

that there's a requirement for a facilities assessment

and then there is a requirement to improve wellness

and training, but there's no requirement that says

you have to, within the calendar year,

approve a multi-million dollar project

for a wellness facility.

What we have to do under the settlement agreement

is provide the finances necessary to achieve it.

And one question that has not been answered or even asked

is if there are other options that

are more financially feasible for the city

to take on to fulfill the requirements of the settlement

agreement.

And I also think it's important that this body has a session

with Alefa because I do take issue,

respectfully with the remark from our attorney that she does not believe that this would

be approved by Alifa.

That is for Alifa to determine that's why they're an independent body.

That is not for the city of Minneapolis to determine if there's no other plan that's

going to be approved.

I felt that that was important to say because I care deeply about the independent nature

of our settlement agreement.

With that said, we have many budget amendments to go forward.

I feel like we have had the conversation necessary about the needs of the administration and

our shared values in fulfilling the settlement agreement, but it just doesn't feel like this

is ready for prime time for me, so that's how it's going to determine my vote, so I

would like to call the question.

Councilmember Chowdhury has called the question.

is not a debatable motion I will ask the clerk to is there a second second I'll

ask the clerk to call the roll councilmember Payne all right Wansley I

rainville no Vita no Osman hi cashman hi Jenkins okay Chavez I

Chowdhury aye Palmasano no vice chair Kosky aye chair Chugtay aye that is

eight eyes and four nays that motion carries no next we're gonna move to the

underlying question. On the amended motion by Wansley and Chowdhury for

traffic safety for all, Mr. Clerk please call the roll. Or Madam Clerk please call

the roll. Councilmember Payne. Aye. Wansley. Aye. Rainville. No. Vita. No.

Osmond no cashman aye Jenkins no Chavez aye Chowdhury

Pavelsano no vice-chair Kosky aye chair Chugtie aye the seven eyes and five nays

That motion carries. Colleagues, we are, this was a really long discussion. I

appreciate it was very informative. So, and I'm seeing that people are needing a

little bit of a break. So we're gonna recess for exactly 15 minutes, right? So

we're gonna come back at 1222 and we're gonna restart. And thank you all.

Go.

Go.

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.

Our lights.

We're ready to begin.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome back colleagues. We're ready to continue with the markup packet. Next up we have amendment number eight presented by council member which is offered by council members Chavez and Osman related to the community connections conference. I will recognize council member Chavez to introduce this item.

Thank you, Chair Chaghtai. Initially, the goal was to restore the Community Connections Conference that you all know that the mayor cut in his proposed budget in August. We know that the Community Connections Conference is a really important gathering where a variety of our community members come together and engage with the city enterprise. It is accessible, it is free, and it is important.

We were going to restore the funding for the Community Connections Conference, but we also know that it was very highly unlikely that the Neighborhood Community Relations Department was preparing for this event next year, and we did not want to set them up with unfair expectations of making sure that they had to do some last-minute planning.

So I would ask for you all to entertain the further resolution and legislative directive

because I do not want to come back into the same position next year

when we want to restore the Community Connections Conference.

So the first thing is a resolution asking us as a city council

to be supportive of the Community Connections Conference.

And the second component is basically a legislative directive

asking the information to provide us information regarding any future Community Connections Conference.

and in response to the city council resolution expressing statements of position pertaining to the community connections conference.

I will say that I want to read a little bit about the resolution and why this community connection conference is important.

So I'll just read the resolution and we'll go from there.

The city council supports reinstating the community connections conference in 2027.

be it further resolved that the city council understands that the Community Connections Conference

is a free event that connects residents of Minneapolis community groups, neighborhoods,

and local government. Be it further resolved that the city council understands that the

Community Connections Conference brings in people who are often underrepresented in local decision

making to meet city leaders in a friendly, welcoming space, celebrate successes, and connect,

learn about new opportunities to get involved, and gain new skills and resources. Be it further

The resolve that the city council understands that this event brings diverse communities together.

In 2023, 942 people attended with 56% of attendings identifying as people of color of those who completed the survey.

In 2024, 1,267 people attended with 54% identified as people of color of those who completed the survey.

We also strongly encourage the neighborhood and community relations department to include a budget proposal to the mayor that includes the community connections conference in their 2027-2028 budget requests.

I would like to move both these items for approval, and we will not be bringing a funding resolution for that, but we would be supportive of it next year.

Second.

We have a proper motion on community connections conference in front of us.

I will just clarify here that this is a zero dollar amendment.

The motion and proposal are not being considered.

The authors were amenable to getting their amendment, which initially was about fully

restoring the Community Connections Conference, withdrawn and wanted to make sure that we

We are moving forward with these two items, this resolution expressing a statement of support for the restoration of the Community Connections Conference into the future, along with a legislative directive requesting the mayor's reaction to the resolution if it is approved.

So with that, I'm going to look to see if colleagues have any questions or comments.

I will recognize Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not going to be supporting this resolution today.

I think that the Community Connections Conference should evolve,

and I think that the way that we interact with communities should be done in more decentralized ways,

more innovative ways.

And I think that the Community Connections Conference is a lot of effort for just one event and the amount of money spent towards Community Connections Conference held at the Convention Center could be better spent actually meeting community where they're at in their own neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize Council Member Chavez, followed by Council Member Osborne.

Thank you, Chair Chuck.

I would also say in response to that comment is that I believe that we can do both our neighborhood and community relations department

Does deep engagement with our community and what we also know is that the neighborhood

Puts a great community connections event that really brings so many people

To a location to engage to learn to talk with city staff where otherwise it would be very difficult to not be able to do all that

incredible work. So the reason we believe in restoring this funding is because we strongly

believe that we can do and should be doing both. I know for a fact that this yearly event that I am

very sad is not going to be happening next year is one of the locations that I get to see a variety

of my constituents from Little Earth, folks advocating for immigrant justice, neighbors

advocating for the rights of people of color in this city.

And to not be able to have that opportunity is going to have a detrimental effect

in the trust and the engagement that we have with our communities of color in particular.

So I would just urge my colleagues to support that.

Next I'll recognize Council Member Osman.

Oh, thank you so much.

And I think like Council Member Chavez say, we can do both.

someone who has participated, community connections,

this is where community come and they can talk to the small business community.

They can talk to the rental rights.

This should be something that's accessible to the residents.

Do I think it should be moved location-wise?

Yes, I think it should be held somewhere where people have access to buses

somewhere in the community where there's space enough.

We can be creative.

It doesn't have to be in a convention center.

but I just trying to read it and see why was this decision made on the mayor's side to you know cut

cut that I think it will affect a lot of people but we were heading to the right direction I think

this was really really important experience and I do want to thank NCR for our staff for really

hosting it, promoting it, connecting to the residents.

And I'm hopeful that we can restore it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, I will recognize

Council Member Jenkins.

Last amendment to

I just think that this is one of the premier

community engagement events of the city. And I think it gives an opportunity for different

neighborhoods to interact with each other and learn, you know, what other neighborhood

organizations are doing. Clearly, it's an opportunity to interact with city staff around

A VARIETY OF ISSUES. SO HOPEFULLY FUNDING CAN BE RESTORED TO THIS SIGNATURE EVENT NEXT YEAR.

THANK YOU. I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE IN CUE. SO WITH THAT, I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.

COUNCILMEMBER PAIN. AYE. WANSLEY. AYE.

RAINVILLE. AYE. VITA. AYE. OSMAN. AYE.

Cashman. No. Jenkins. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Chowdhury. Aye. Palmasano. Aye. Vice-Chair Kosky. Aye. Chair Chugtay. Aye. There's 11 ayes, 1 nay. That motion carries.

All right. Next, we are going to move to amendment number nine, which is offered by council members Chavez and Wansley related to immigration legal services.

Council member Chavez, please present your amendment and make a motion.

Thank you, Chair Chuck Tide.

this amendment is increasing the amount already allocated in the budget that we have all been

working hard to increase for the past few years by an additional $121,000 and $418 in ongoing

funding for immigration legal services to Minneapolis residents. I'm proud to author

this with Councilmember Wansley. You know, we have seen an increase of federal enforcement,

immigration enforcement across the city this year.

And we drafted this amendment initially just to increase it

because we had seen a need impacting our immigrant residents.

And this week has been extra hard for our neighbors.

So I would ask that everybody support this amendment

because we know that what we have in our current budget

is not even close to the enough amount of funding

that we need to serve our immigrant residents.

I am having multiple conversations with a lot of our immigrant neighbors, our residents,

that even the amount that we are proposing here today is not enough to meet that need.

So while I will be asking all of you to vote in favor of this amendment today, I do know

that we are going to continue to look for more funding as we head on to the final meeting

of this budget adoption on Tuesday.

I'll speak a little bit about why this is really important.

we have a lot of our neighbors right now who are being kidnapped by this disgusting federal

administration who is literally picking up our neighbors off the streets. We have due process

being stripped away from a lot of our immigrant neighbors, and we have a federal administration

that does not care about our communities. And we know when we have a government that does not care

about its people, we have to step up as a city enterprise. And one of those ways and one of the

opportunities that we have a city to do so is by increasing our funding for

legal services for our immigrant neighbors. And

we're bringing this forward today because we have

continued to see a need for these services. We know that we do not have enough

in our city. And even with this increase, there's still not going to be enough.

So I would just ask all my colleagues to support this amendment and also

hope you understand that we are still looking for something before the final adoption

on the budget because this need has only increased this past week.

Thank you.

And you'll move approval?

We will move approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

I'll recognize Council Member Wansley and then Council Member Osmond.

Thank you.

CVP checks high.

Also, thank you to the lead author, Council Member Chavez,

for working to bring this forward and also acknowledging

that this is the bare minimum that we can be doing to meet what has become a very clear need

amongst our residents, especially our immigrant residents who are constantly being terrorized in

our communities in light of Trump's most recent executive order that has deployed federal agents

to target very specific community groups within Minneapolis.

And we already know that many of our residents

have already been dealing with the targeting

that you very much described as people being kidnapped.

And I'm part of many groups that are being formed right now.

And I am just also gonna say I'm so proud

of Minneapolis residents who are showing up

in building networks of support and solidarity in real time

to figure out how we defend our residents from being kidnapped

by federal agents, many of which don't even identify themselves

who are disregarding, as you highlighted, due process and feel emboldened

to do so. And it's been both

disheartening and saddening to watch

many of my colleagues these past couple days drive

around Minneapolis trying to locate where ICE is, where they're looking to carry out

their deportation or detainment operations, and to see you all fill questions about people

being scared to show up to their ICE appointments because they're afraid that they're going to be

removed and separated from their families while literally following the immigration process that

we've set out before them. So I just want to say thank you to your leadership. And I know this is

an incredibly challenging time for our city, for many of our residents, but I am so thankful

to see that our city again is united in making sure that our most vulnerable communities know

that they are cared for, that they matter. And this is just one piece that we can do programmatically

to also show that their city stands behind them.

And we're, as you highlighted,

looking for additional resources to bump this up as well.

And I look forward to supporting increased funding

and this effort and all the things that we do

to make sure our immigrant residents know

that they have a place here

and we are going to defend their right to exist,

to live, to have a quality of life

in spite of what this federal administration does.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next I'll recognize Councilmember Osman.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And it's been really tough for many members of our community.

They're being targeted by what they look like.

Our president has called them directly to, by name,

and decorating them as less than human, calling Somali community garbage and all the other

horrible woods that he used.

So we need everyone's help and any help we can get.

I think the city does did phenomenal job the press conference with city leaders were amazing. We sent out a clear message

It's tough out there for money US citizen talking about the US citizen

My friends my residents are being stopped on the streets right now

Being asked documentations

I'm carrying my my green my passport right now as we speak so

No one is safe.

And this is when we need other communities that are non-East African, non-Latino, American citizens or fellow citizens in Minneapolis to stand up with us in Minnesota.

And, you know, history will write this, you know, targeting one group of people.

Just don't be silent.

Don't be silent.

say something, help out, reach out to the neighbors. I've been doing everything I can to help my

community, and I encourage every city department to do your best to see who you can help.

And the Office of Immigration needs all the help it can get. There's plenty of phone calls people

are sending, they don't know where to turn for help.

One of the saddest things that I got was a random text message from probably a resident

who say, I've been detained, please help.

And so many different messages.

I don't really want to share all the horrible stories that's happening in the community,

but it's real.

So I do want to say people are hurting your fellow residents, fellow neighbors are being targeted.

That's just the reality of it.

It's not just what you see in the news.

It's that I'm here.

I'm right here.

My community, my family, we're all scared of what's happening.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this forward, council members.

I'm not seeing anyone else in queue.

I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll on this item.

Council member Payne.

Aye.

Wansley.

Aye.

Rainville.

Aye.

Vita.

Aye.

Osman.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Jenkins.

Aye.

Chavez.

Aye.

Chowdhury.

Aye.

Palmasano.

Aye.

Vice Chair Kosky.

Aye.

Chair Chugtay.

That is 12 ayes.

That motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we are ready to move to

Amendment No. 11,

offered by...

Amendment No. 10, I apologize.

Offered by Council President Payne,

Council Member Chavez, and Council Member Osmond.

This is related to

the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs

Staffing. I will recognize

Council President Payne to please

introduce your amendment

and make a motion.

Thank you, Vice President Chug Tai.

The previous amendment really spoke to the need here, and I think, again, whether it is legal services or full-time staff, we are in crisis right now.

We can always do more, and this is my attempt at trying to fulfill our needs and meet this moment.

This is for a full-time staffer to staff up our capacity within the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.

I have made a really concerted effort this term to build a deeper relationship with the Ecuadorian consulate,

which is hosted in my ward.

I joined them on a monthly basis to do a resource fair.

That was a commitment I made to the ambassador.

But even next week is the next time that the city is scheduled to be there.

I have audit committee, so I can't miss audit committee as the chair.

It's going to be OIRA staff that's going to be there to fulfill that commitment.

And there's been times when it's just been me.

It's just been me and my staff.

I'm fortunate to have a little bit of staff capacity when it comes to bilingual understanding.

but like that that's like childhood level you know I went to like a Spanish immersion school

I can speak a little bit of Spanish but like when you have that dedicated committed staff that's

you know what what's been really great is building an actual relationship with the ambassador

and it's it takes that type of full focus of people's time to build the types of relationships

that we need to help support our community and I think that in this moment I think that's what's

been really profound is the sense of powerlessness as we see the federal government run through our

community kidnapping people and this idea that there's nothing that we can do is something that

I reject and I think that the idea that the city is going to singularly save us is also not true

what's going to happen is that we're going to keep us safe our community is going to keep us

safe and we're going to be in partnership with our community to stand up for the dignity of

every single resident of Minneapolis regardless of their status and we want

to be in partnership with our community doing that and that requires deep

relationships and that's why there's a real need for full-time staff to be able

to give that type of time energy and focus so I hope I can earn everyone's

support I'm grateful to my colleagues for co-authoring this amendment and the

previous amendment that they brought forward because this needs to be an

all-hands-on-deck moment. Thank you. Thank you. And you'll move approval? And I move approval. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion on this item? Not seeing any, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council member Payne. Aye. Wansley. Aye.

Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye.

Osmond. Aye. Cashman. Aye.

Jenkins. Aye. Chavez.

Aye. Chowdhury. Aye. Palmisano. Aye.

Vice Chair Kosky. Aye. Chair Chugtay. Aye.

That is 12 ayes. That motion carries.

Next, we are moving to the next two amendments are revised versions.

So these revisions were a product of discussions with the administration.

Since they are both, this is about speak, related to speak Minneapolis and cultural media.

As they're both related to the communications department and these items have been discussed together,

I'm going to ask that we take up both

Amendment No. 11 and Amendment No. 12 together.

These are offered by Council Members Chowdhury,

President Payne, and myself.

Council Member Chowdhury, will you please present

Amendment No. 11 and 12 and make a motion.

Thank you so much, Chair Chugtai.

I really appreciate the co-authors for joining me

in this effort and colleagues.

I ask for your support to restore funding that was proposed to be cut to both Speak MPLS

public access and then also cultural radio.

Speak MPLS is our public access media to our community.

It offers opportunities to connect with community members throughout the city of Minneapolis

from different cultural backgrounds, from different economic backgrounds,

and also offers creative opportunities for community members to learn how to create medium of their own,

to take classes, to have their own podcasts, to share information and to tell their stories.

And I felt it was really important to bring this forward because in a moment in time

where we have seen our federal government make a decision to no longer fund public broadcasts,

it's really, really pertinent that we continue to keep the minimal funding that we do give

to cultural media and speak Minneapolis.

This organization is run by local entrepreneurs with a staff team from our community.

And in 2019, when they first received the RFP, they started out with a budget of $472,000 a year and has requested since that time for a 3% increase.

And that has not been able to be made for varying factors, but it has stayed flat and they have had to find out how to do more with less.

Consistently, this organization has also given their staff cost of living raises as the cost of living has gone up and again being asked to do more with less.

And they shared an impact statement to this body that said this cut would lead them to no longer have RISE MPLS, a paid internship leadership development program for Minneapolis high school students.

and that would have a reduction of 10 slots down to 7.

Teach MPLS, their program that provides free and low-cost classes

in video production and media literacy.

And I think it's important to note that they made that choice

because of all of the operational things that they have to do.

They contract out for their attorneys.

The cost of their attorneys annually is this cut.

it's about 12,000. And so in a moment in time where they're doing more with less, and frankly,

we should see an increase, I think it's important that we keep this funding.

I was proposing an ongoing allocation, but in conversations with council vice president and

the administration, they've agreed to a one-time allocation with a commitment that in 2027,

we continue to restore the funding

and I would hope to find ways to increase it

so we can continue to not only broaden this amazing service

that we have to reach our communities

in a moment where we should have more public service announcements

we should have cultural media and cultural radio

in Hmong, Somali, Oromo, Spanish

to give people information related to not only opportunities in the community,

but what they need to know their rights.

I feel that it's really, really important that we...

Sorry, my blood sugar is so low.

So apologies, colleagues.

Thank you.

All right.

I'll just close with this because I'm having my moment of brain fog.

I hope to earn your support.

There's a lot of good information within the packet, and I also hope that we can support

continuing this funding into future years.

Will you make the motion to approve?

I'll make the motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

I see a few council members in queue.

I'm going to let Council Member Chowdhury take care of her needs right now.

So if there are going to be specific questions on this amendment, I'll take them.

I'll recognize Council Member Paul Misano, followed by Council Member Vita.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And these two amendments have been changed to one-time funding.

because of that change. I'm generally supportive of these today, but I still wanted to make a few

comments. This earmark of $25,000 between the two is a small amount of the contractual allocation

to Speak Minneapolis. It still leaves them with funding of like $460,000. Our comms team has to

absorb a cut in this way.

An earmark is a cut.

It's a cut to our own city services.

This cut is, I'm not sure what percentage, and maybe the communications department can

answer this question, of the communication department's discretionary budget.

These are significant when they're paired together.

This takes away, an earmark is a cut, in this case, to the communication department's

discretionary budget.

Could staff or somebody, or maybe you, Madam Chair,

please tell me what those discretionary dollars are currently used for?

Is it used for other contractual services that we will have to do less of?

I see Adam Fletcher in the audience, but I'm not sure if you've had these discussions.

We have, and have talked with finance about this quite extensively.

So the place where these are placed right now,

within the contractual services budget for the communications department is a part of a $70,000 pot of money that is used for AV replacement and other.

Mr. Fletcher, why don't you go ahead, please?

Right, Chair Chugtai, members of the council.

Correct, yes, we have a very limited discretionary budget of $70,000,

which pays for, I would characterize as sort of the bare minimum tools and services

that we rely on to be a professional communication shop.

So that includes, you know, tools for media contacts, social media posting,

you know, being able to schedule posting.

certain needs in terms of the basic equipment that you use for content creation, as the

chair suggested.

So yeah, I think in all told, the combined $25,000 earmark here would be a 26% cut from

that modest discretionary budget.

So then, Mr. Fetcher, could you help me understand how do you plan to absorb these two amendments?

Will it mean doing less with social media?

Will it mean to be continuing to use an outdated tool?

How do you plan to absorb that?

Well, it will require a choice between either impacting that modest discretionary budget

or looking at personnel costs.

If it impacts the discretionary budget, I think you're correct in that it will require us

to use more outdated tools or not upgrade equipment

when the need comes.

If we have equipment that ceases to function,

for example, AV or video equipment,

we may need to avoid replacing that

or make do with less equipment.

So yeah, it's a meaningful cost to our operations

in terms of getting the city's message out.

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks for the time.

Yeah. Mr. Fetcher, while you're here, just real quick, I feel like I'm, so there are several staff within the communications department that support some of the work that we do here with our live broadcasting and council proceedings.

So am I remembering or am I understanding correctly that you do currently have a vacancy in your department due to like a promotion type situation?

We are currently undertaking some reorganization.

So we have a number of roles that are currently posted.

A number of those roles are geared towards internal promotions.

They haven't been filled yet.

And we do have one vacancy, which is a role that was part of the unification, came from regulatory services, a digital communications coordinator, which we're working to fill as quickly as possible.

Gotcha.

So would it be fair to say that a way that you could absorb this one-time appropriation of or earmark of $25,000 is through some of the vacancy savings that you will likely have?

Because those positions are almost certainly not going to be filled by January 1 when you get access to this budget.

Correct.

And the bottom line is we very much appreciate the change to a one-time versus ongoing.

Thank you.

Council Member Osmond?

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I do want to ask the item that passed 9, 10, and 11, if I can co-author, please.

And I do support this item that we're talking about right now.

I think cultural media is very, very important to support.

we have seen

the civil unrest

I think the

information people have been receiving

when they receive a language

they understand and their

algorithm, let's just say the algorithm

like people

on your social media

you're not going to see a different language

but if you are

Spanish speaking

Somali speaking, the first thing you see is Spanish speaking

Somali speaking

So just that's the way the world works.

So I think it's important to support these communities

and make sure that they are getting the services cities providing,

not just the one channel, but multiple channels.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Councilmember Osmond,

I want to make sure that we clarify what you're hoping to co-author

because I'm certain that there are some questions in the clerks.

So you would like to co-author Immigration Legal Services

That one was Chavez Wansley, is that correct?

Right

And then you are already a co-author on Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs Staffing

Okay, that's perfect

And then you want to do, do you want to do both of the Speak MPLS and Cultural Media?

That is correct

Awesome, perfect

That's correct

Clerks, we've got that?

Appreciate it

Wonderful

I'm not seeing anyone else in queue

So on amendment number 11 and 12, speak MPLS and cultural media programming respect to, oh, I am so sorry.

Councilmember Jenkins.

Thank you, Council Vice President.

I just want to be named as a co-author on 11 and 12.

We've got that? Awesome. Thank you.

and all right so on amendment number 11 and 12 speak MPLS and cultural media

clerk please call the roll. Councilmember Payne. Aye. Wansley. Aye.

Rainville. Aye. Vita. Aye. Osmond. Aye. Cashman. Aye. Jenkins. Aye. Chavez. Aye. Chowdhury.

Palmasano? Aye. Vice Chair Kosky? Aye. Chowdhury? Council Member Chowdhury is just in the back. Madam Chair.

and I see her walking out.

All good.

That count?

Thank you.

And Chair Chugtay.

Aye.

That is 12 ayes.

Thank you.

Or that motion passes.

Next we are going to move to amendment number 13

which is

offered by

Councilmember Vita related to

fourth precinct mobile cameras um and i know there's going to be a series of changes that will

that will happen here so i'm going to recognize council member vita to introduce this item um and

and make a motion

thank you chair um this item is uh in response to a really big problem we have in north

Minneapolis around dumping and so I've asked for a couple additional milestone

mobile cameras I'm sure you've all seen them they're the cameras that kind of

get wheeled around in different communities and so what we noticed in

the past year since I since I've been on the council I've had probably more

dumping complaints than anything and I don't mean like somebody dropped a bag

of trash. I mean like massive amounts of garbage being dumped in places in North Minneapolis.

I'll give an example. I'll give a couple examples. One morning I got a call saying

there are 300 tires in my alley. And I was like, there is no way this person has 300 tires.

This is impossible. But I'm going to go by anyway to see what's happening in this alley.

300 tires I didn't count them but it looked like 300 to me also so there's massive amounts of

dumping like that me and my team had just went by to see um a location that the city had been

cleaning up often and we just rode by and it was completely clean 10 minutes after we left I got a

call saying 40 mattresses have been dumped on this site and we go back out and 40 mattresses are

dumped on this site. And so dumping is a real issue in my ward, in North Minneapolis as a whole.

There's been a big issue also with the dumping for small businesses. When small businesses have

dumping on their grounds, they have to pay a price to clean it up. And I get lots of complaints from

small businesses who are spending thousands of dollars weekly to have this dumping removed.

So the goal here is to add two of the milestone cameras.

I know a few people have reached out about the cameras not being used in the winter months.

So we really will be kind of trying this out to see.

But what we've seen success in the last year is sometimes the cameras are in areas where there may be high crime or particular things that the police are surveying.

and then we capture these license plates of the people dumping,

or we capture the people dumping on these cameras.

So this isn't a long-term fix by no means.

This is a short-term, hopefully, solution to dumping.

I did a legislative directive a couple years ago to figure out some opportunities around dumping.

Nothing really came of that.

It's an issue that I'm going to continue to explore.

But for now, I really would like to see how we could use these milestone, a couple more milestone cameras and figure out if we could curb some of the dumping.

Thank you. And I understand that you also were able to work out a more immediate solution with the with the administration on this.

I know they're working on moving a couple of, I think it's the mobile cameras to the fourth precinct immediately.

And that's outlined in the letter that the mayor sent over yesterday to make a commitment that he's directing his administration to make this change.

Yes, I think we've worked out some things with the mayor's office.

The mayor's office has been really helpful.

They understand the need.

We've been in conversation for four years about this, so yes.

And am I remembering correctly that we have, are you going to withdraw this amendment,

or is this going to continue?

No, I plan to withdraw the amendment because I think the letter is sufficient enough for us to move forward with.

So typically they put the cameras away in the winter months.

That's right.

And what they're agreeing to is to see what we can do with it in the winter, basically.

Wonderful.

So Council Member Vita has withdrawn Amendment Number 13.

And we will include the letter from Mayor Fry on Northside illegal dumping around this interim solution,

immediate solution we were able to work out between councilmember Vita and the

and the mayor's office and the police department so why we are ready to move

to the next amendment I believe but we're going to continue to include this

in the in the legislative file on on on the budget all right next up amendment

Number 14, offered by Councilmembers Vita and Rainville, related to crime prevention specialists.

I'm going to recognize Councilmember Vita to present this amendment and make a motion.

Thank you, Chair.

So this amendment is about two crime prevention specialists.

One would be in the 4th Precinct and the other in the 1st Precinct.

I'll speak to the needs for the 4th Precinct.

The 4th Precinct has three wards, Ward 7, 5, and Ward 4.

And we currently have two crime prevention specialists.

They're doing a fantastic job.

But there is a great need for a third, with Bryn Mawr being a part of who we need for crime prevention,

who uses crime prevention specialists also.

Crime prevention specialists does a lot of things for us in the 4th Precinct around problem properties,

around the issue with dumping, a lot of things that get reported.

We're grateful that we get to deploy those issues to crime prevention specialists and not MPD.

It frees up a lot of time for MPD to work on other things.

And so there is a great need here with us having three wards in our precinct.

And I know Council Member Rainville has some similar but different needs,

so I'll let him speak to the first precinct.

And you'll move approval?

And I'll move approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Wonderful.

Next, I will recognize Council Member Rainville.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, so I've asked to be on this with Council Member of Utah

because the need in the first precinct has grown.

Whether it's Elliott Park, Loring Park,

the civilian specialists work so well

that it would be very helpful in tamping down the crime in those areas.

So I would appreciate a vote on this to help out.

Thank you.

And next I will recognize Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to ask Commissioner Barnett to come up on this item.

My question for you, Commissioner, is if this budget amendment passes,

if you will implement it and hire new crime prevention specialists in the first and fourth

precincts. Chair, Todd Barnett, Commissioner of Community Safety, Chair Chuck Tai, Councilmember

Cashman, it would be I intend to hire for these two positions. The real

limitation is that we normally try to not do it geographically, but do it by need.

So I get the idea of putting it in the first and the fourth precinct. Don't get me wrong.

The need could be great there, but I'm just saying that in general,

where we would deploy additional staff would normally be where their greater need is.

Which precinct has had the largest increase in crime in the last few years?

Am I correct in saying that it's the fifth precinct?

I don't have that number.

I'm sorry, Chair, through the Chair, I don't have that number right here, Council Member Cashman.

We have a lot of data that shows robberies, car-related thefts, all sorts of other things have spiked in the fifth precinct.

last budget cycle we allocated funding to hire a second crime prevention specialist in the fifth

precinct and that person was never hired and in fact the hours of the fifth precinct crime

prevention specialists were reduced can you explain why that decision was made

through the chair council member cashman at this time i know there's been discussions about that

in the specific details of how that decision was made,

I don't remember right now.

I'm going to need some information on that decision

in order to be able to support this amendment.

Ward 7 has Precinct 4, Precinct 1, and Precinct 5 in it.

Fourth Precinct already has two crime prevention specialists.

Downtown is the smallest precinct.

Fifth Precinct, on the other hand,

is the precinct that has the highest spicing crime

in the last few years and has the lowest amount of crime prevention specialist resources per capita.

Last year, Council Vice President Chugtai and I allocated money to hire a second crime prevention specialist

in the 5th Precinct responding to the needs of our residents, especially in Uptown,

and that budget amendment was not implemented.

And I just want to be clear, that was incredibly confusing, continues to be confusing,

and as the commissioner, I expect you to have an answer on why that decision was made.

It's within your authority to make those decisions.

Through the chair, Councilmember Cashman.

There are a lot of decisions that come through my desk.

There are a lot of decisions in all five departments.

I don't remember every single reason behind those decisions.

I'm happy to get that information for you.

Like I said, I just don't right now remember the specifics.

I would ask for an administrative follow-up on that question, Chair.

Why don't we have our clerks note that?

Thank you very much.

Anything else, Chair?

Council Member Cashman, do you have any further questions for the commissioner?

No, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Vitao, followed by Council Member Chavez.

Thank you, Chair.

The intent of this is not to, you know, compare where crime is happening more at or not.

Like, I get it.

The 5th Precinct belongs to you, Council Member Cashman, and you get to advocate for whatever you want.

What I'm up here doing is advocating for the needs of the 4th Precinct.

I don't have the crime stats, and I don't have the specific crime stats.

I don't.

The goal of this is to not generate more crime,

to have the crime prevention specialists intervene before things get worse in the fourth precinct.

Bryn Mawr is in your ward. You represent them, and there is a need. We have two. We need three.

It has nothing to do with what's happening in the five, what's happening in five, what's happening

in one. It's not about that. It's really about what's happening in the fourth precinct, and there

is a need. There may be a need for five. I don't know. What I'm trying to do here is get one more

crime prevention specialists to help in the three wards that we have. I don't know what happened

with you all's amendment last year and what you did. I do remember that amendment. If that came

up in mind, I wouldn't have got to a year later at a budget committee and, you know, embarrass staff

in front of everybody and start talking about what didn't happen. This feels like something

that should have been worked out before you started pitting it against what I'm trying to do here.

It's not about one precinct or the other.

It really is about the need for what I need in my precinct.

I've talked to council vice president and chair budget a couple times about this.

I really wish you would have said this to me, that you all had concerns because this didn't happen the last time.

I'm watching you look at the commissioner and like y'all call him in some kind of lie or something when you could have said to me,

This didn't work out for us last year, Councilmember Vita.

Is this the direction you want to go in?

Maybe there's a different route for this.

Instead of this playing out like this today where we've asked for something,

you knew exactly what I asked for.

You could have said this isn't the way to do it because this didn't work out for me

and Councilmember Cashman.

But instead, it was done, and then the commissioners brought up here to, like,

on trial to be caught in a lie or whatever we think is going to play out here.

I don't like it. I mean, it really is about getting resources into the fourth precinct that we need.

I don't know who needs whatever. I know what I need and I know what I've been asked for.

And all I'm asking you all to do is support it or not. If you don't support it, you don't support it.

But it has nothing to do with what you got or what you didn't get. That's not what I'm asking here.

I'm not saying support me because yours worked out or don't support me because yours didn't.

I'm saying there's a need in the fourth ward. I don't know the fourth precinct. I don't know the crime stats for everything. I can't tell you what all the crime prevention specialists responded to. What I do know is they work. They're valuable. That crime is going down in North Minneapolis and we have crime prevention specialists to thank for that. And so I want to continue to make sure that that's happening.

I'm not seeing anyone else in queue. I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council member Payne.

Nay.

Wansley.

Nay.

Rainville.

Aye.

Aye.

Vita.

Aye.

Osmond.

No.

Cashman.

No.

Jenkins.

Aye.

Chavez.

No.

Chaudhry is absent.

No, she's here.

Nay.

Palmisano.

Aye.

Vice Chair Kosky.

Aye.

Chair Chugtay.

Nay.

That is five ayes, seven nays.

That motion fails.

Next we will move to amendment number 15 offered by council members Wansley Cashman, President Payne and Council Member Osmond related to restoring the mayor's cuts to civilian investigators.

I will, this amendment will include the standard amendment format and it has an additional resolution that goes along with it.

I'm going to recognize Council Member Wansley to please present your amendment and make a motion.

Thank you, CVP Chukty.

Last year, the council funded five civilian investigators to support NPD in their backlog of cases.

This was in response by several council members hearing from their residents that MPD was not following back up with them on those individual cases.

As of now, MP does have thousands of unsolved cases, and these include hundreds of open cases for homicides, sex crimes, crimes against children, arson, and other extremely serious crimes.

And each open case also means a victim in a family that has not received closure, let alone justice.

The five civilian investigators will have expanded MPD's capacity as well as maximize staffing resources to help reduce their extensive backlog and ultimately solve cases, which is a shared goal of all of us.

For unclear reasons, however, MPD under the mayor's direction only hired three of those investigators despite the significant need that's been articulated and then also cut those positions to lower down the levy.

This was a poor decision outright and is significantly counter to MPD's own data as it relates to investigative needs.

This amendment restores the two positions that the mayor has proposed to cut.

And in fact, recently in the Public Health and Safety Committee, we received a presentation in response to Councilmember Cashman's legislative directive on clearance rates that basically demonstrated that these positions are deeply needed to meet the great demand around our backlog cases and to address our pretty low clearance rates.

So this proposal also includes if people want to get further into the numbers and things of that nature, you can look at that.

But also accompanying this budget amendment is a resolution that requests the administration to terminate the city's contract with Zen City Technologies U.S. Inc.

That resolution also highlights the public or has highlighted the fact that the public has not seen benefit from this particular contract.

And thus, its funding should be repurposed to meet other critical safety needs, such as helping expand NPD's capacity to clear and solve cases.

With that, I will move both motions for approval and ask for a second.

We have a proper motion before us.

We'll move to discussion.

Council President Payne.

Thank you, Vice President Chuck Tai.

I actually held my comments on the last item because of the source and my connection to it.

I didn't want to bring any bias into that conversation, but I think there is some relevancy here in that.

I was actually genuinely shocked when we had that case closure presentation in PHS to hear that the commander was not authorized to actually hire for the positions that we had allocated.

I had been, you know, I meet monthly with the police chief.

One of the topics that I was raising almost on a monthly basis was, you know, where are the crime prevention specialists that were allocated for the fifth precinct?

I showed up to a neighborhood association meeting on Monday and, you know, the chair of the neighborhood had to apologize and say, oh, I'm sorry, our precinct inspector is not available.

I'm sorry, our crime prevention specialist is not available.

and I was confused about where that crime prevention specialist was

and it turned out, you know, it was later reported in the Star Tribune

that they had been working a second job and overbilling over time

and they have separated from the city.

I don't know any further details beyond what's reported in the Star Tribune

but it's a reflection of a poor set of financial controls,

lack of oversight and bad management practices within MPD

that is leading to council allocating resources

to achieve a specific community safety outcome

and our inability to achieve that.

This should not be an amendment before us today

because we made this allocation last year.

It should have been implemented,

and it's only been this week since we got the quarterly report

where we saw the $19 million cost overrun,

which maybe is getting at why maybe some of those positions were held.

And I think that's a failure of transparency.

We should not have these, you know, decisions that seem to not make sense, that we later learn the reason they might make sense is because there was a major, you know, over-budget scenario in the department.

So I think that we need to restore these civilian investigators, but beyond that, we need to make sure that we have tighter management and financial controls over this department.

Next, I'll recognize Council Member Palmisano.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't disagree with anything that President Payne just said, but I did want to speak to the Zen City part of this amendment, which is part B, right? We're not going to vote on that separately.

Unless you ask to divide the question.

No, I think that's fine.

The supporting documents for this amendment reference that the contract with Zen City

does not fulfill any provision of the MDHR settlement agreement.

But yet, the settlement agreement does require that Minneapolis prove it is adhering to its

training requirements.

This contract is about measuring whether that training is working and residents see or feel

a difference, whether they feel they're being treated fairly.

It is about surveying, not surveillance, which a lot of people seem to be conflating here.

This isn't about Zen City.

This is about the need to survey our residents, whoever does it.

This is about compliance with the settlement agreement.

This is about reaching communities who have been historically discriminated against by

MPD and meeting requirements that non-discriminatory policing efforts reflect the values and needs

of those communities. We know that typical online surveys don't reach communities in the proportion

that we have them here in our city. I have a couple questions for, I think, Commissioner Barnett

about this. I think I'm correct in those statements, but I don't understand how we will

accomplish this work if we cut the funding for surveying services. This is not something that we

can do in-house, is it? Through the chair, Councilmember Pomisano, you're absolutely correct.

This is not, we don't have the capability to do this internally. That's right. Are there other

vendors who can provide this type of engagement? I would probably have to go back and look at that.

I know we have Zen City doing this.

I don't know what other vendors do this work.

So if we need to survey to prove compliance,

I don't really understand how we're going to achieve that.

What would the loss of the Special Crimes Investigations Department contractual funds mean for them?

There's a lot of teams within investigations.

I'm not sure what these are.

I assume things like homicide, sexual assault, property crimes?

If this amendment passed, and I think you have it in your packet,

we'll have to lose two embedded social workers, three of our 13 chaplains,

and we would also look at having to reduce some of the victim services

or advocated services that we have.

So social workers seems like a big loss to me.

Chaplains for people in their time of need.

What was the third thing you said?

And also when you look at reducing the $79,000 in special crimes, contractual services,

that will result in a reduction of our victim advocacy funding.

Victim advocacy is something that many of us here on this dais have been looking to bolster and add funding and attention to over the past several years.

I feel like this has a direct impact on our community, and I find it hard to believe that civilian investigators will somehow decrease the need for these other services, as stated in the supporting documents for this amendment.

That is an absolute supposition.

I think that there is a point of confusion in the community that surveying is somehow the same as surveillance.

Zen City was hired to help research diverse demographics and ask if they would voluntarily participate in a survey of their perceptions of MPD.

Do the authors of this resolution think that we can do targeted outreach in-house for less money and greater success?

I doubt that we can, but I would encourage the authors to tell me how they think we should.

I would encourage the authors to help educate me as to how they met with city staff to discuss

how this work would be replaced by defunding this contract.

This work does need to be done, contrary to the beliefs of the authors.

This contract is up at the end of next year, so why not let the contract run out and allow an RFP?

We can't just cut the surveying for good.

Council Member Osmond?

Oh, I did want to talk about the Sun City as we hear the public comments.

It's obvious if you do a little bit of research, this is a

the Israeli intelligent folks that we contract.

I just didn't even know why in the beginning we contract.

It's such a horrible business organization

who continue to, you know,

surveillance and do horrible things in Palestine.

Go check out Twitter, what the CEO is saying.

So personally, I have a disagreement specific to since city and why we should contract.

And I think we should listen to other residents who have continued to voice their concern about as a city of Minneapolis contracting this kind of surveillance organization

that continue to violate human rights as we speak in Palestine.

So that is just a simple answer, and simple, straightforward, should not be lining up.

We don't have the same value as them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member.

I put myself in queue.

I have some questions for the author that I'm hoping Council Member Wansley will answer for me.

Councilmember Wansley, in putting together this amendment, did your office meet with the police department to discuss their budget?

Yeah, we followed up on this with all of our departments.

And actually, I had a presentation done on the Zen City contract specifically and administration oversight way, like, a year ago ahead of these deliberations.

because we've long discussed as a body what purpose does this actually serve in terms of a

surveying tool and other options that we could pursue which as someone who was here before you

direct or commissioner barnett um i recall mpd saying they could do competitive bids what the

outstanding question is if you all actually did a competitive rfp bid for this contract so yeah we

We did lots of work on this one.

Wonderful.

I have several questions for you, council member.

The next one, did you meet with the person who is the closest expert to the finances of the Minneapolis Police Department, their finance director?

Oh, yeah.

Miss Vicky?

Vicky?

Yes.

Yes, we did.

Yes.

Wonderful.

That's excellent.

So let's go through the two places where the decreases are happening or the reductions are happening to the police department budget.

And I just want you to tell me what it is that Director Troswick told you would impact the police department's budget.

Just because there seems to be some confusion about chaplains again.

So on the first one, the $150,000 reduction to community engagement and outreach bureau.

Tell me what happens, what is that money coming from?

Yeah, so as the budget amendment notes, it does come from the Police Department Community Engagement and Outreach Bureau.

Within that, specifically their contractual services, where Zen City and a number of other contracts are held, and we're talking about in the millions.

And we have been in conversations with the director to learn that not all of the Zen City money have been allocated.

And actually, this should not impact court services because there's already terms baked into that contract that says the city could terminate within those three years at the end of each year.

So we could have terminated, which we're asking you all to do now, and there will be savings.

And we are proposing using those savings of the $150,000 to go towards civilian investigators.

And then of the separate piece of this, the remaining $79,852 come from NPD's Investigations in Forensic Division Contractual Services.

And that budget is $5.4 million for 2026.

And you specifically, did you specifically think about using the forensic services, contractual services, the contractual services budget?

Because as it turns out, when we don't have enough staffing for civilian investigations, we have to contract it out.

Exactly.

So bring the services in-house.

That's actually the most cost-effective model of this.

Why not prioritize as we had the foresight to do a year ago to make that investment of really this is low, $200,000 so that we're not constantly outsourcing and maybe the potential millions from contractual services for investigative needs.

And last thing I think, are civilian investigators actually represented employees of AFSCME?

Yes, these are union members with us.

So you wanted us to use contractual services money to expand labor-represented positions within our own department in-house?

Yes.

Excellent.

Yeah, and I just want to highlight, too, this was complementing the almost $20 million investment we made in the police contract that articulated and got a letter of agreement for us to hire more civilian investigators.

So this literally pairs with that $20 million investment to actually execute the police contract to.

Wonderful. Thank you for answering my questions and letting me put you on trial, Council Member Wansley.

And thank you for educating all of us about what happened in the background when you picked these sources.

Next, we're going to move to Council President Payne, followed by Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Vice President Chug Tai.

I put myself in queue earlier, then I took myself out, but I felt I wanted to add myself back to queue.

My original thought pattern here was we like to talk a lot about the settlement agreement and the requirements.

It's just so fundamentally important to remind ourselves that the requirements within the settlement agreement are the floor.

They're the bare minimum to deliver constitutional policing in the city of Minneapolis.

We should always be striving to do something better than the bare minimum.

So that's just more of a philosophical thing.

but on the matter of Zen City as a source,

I actually have two thoughts.

On the matter of Zen City as a source,

I did get a chance to sit down with Commander Martin,

who's overseeing the Community Engagement and Outreach Bureau,

who is the person that is responsible for administering Zen City.

I got a chance to meet with PMI leadership

and DCO Garnett-Hohuli

to just talk about what the body's will was when it came to this contract and what we were trying

to accomplish with it. And we had a very robust conversation around our internal capacity to be

able to meet the needs of the settlement agreement. And I offered up in that meeting to sit down with

whomever we need to sit down with, whether that's in PMI or in the Community Engagement Outreach

Bureau. The expertise is in-house. I actually developed, I was a contractor on PMI before I

was elected. I was contracted to be an expert in design thinking and research methods, and we

developed an entire research methodology to do the behavioral crisis response that had very robust

surveying. We have a very different set of requirements where it comes to surveying for

the settlement agreement, but it is my belief that if we work together as an institution,

we can actually achieve our goals.

And I'm offering up my services to help us get there.

And on the second thing,

we've gone through this a number of times.

These cuts,

these don't translate to the cuts that you're outlining.

We don't get to decide those cuts.

You get to decide those cuts.

So if you're saying that the impact is going to be

on victim services or on chaplains,

that's a choice that we don't get to make.

that's a choice that NPD leadership gets to make.

And I hope that NPD leadership will look at their budget

and be really thoughtful about where they think

the impact is gonna be minimized.

That's all I gotta say.

Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I chose to co-author this amendment

because of the low clearance rates

that we're hearing about

and the need for more investigation capacity.

And I know that it's easier to hire civilian investigators

and it is sworn investigators given staffing shortages in the police department

as well as all of the training and requirements that go into becoming a sworn officer.

So I think that civilianizing these positions are a really good way to get our capacity up in investigations.

We also fought hard for this in negotiations with the last police contract, as someone else mentioned,

and I think we deserve to carry out this strategy of civilianizing our investigations.

I also think that when it comes to police accountability, one of the best ways that we can improve accountability with our community is through strong and successful investigations.

That is the user experience or customer experience of the police department is, you know, when you file a police report, do folks follow up with you?

Do they ask questions?

Do they get your statement?

Do they provide you updates on your investigation?

and then eventually do they create consequences for the crime that took place.

And I know that it's an incredibly difficult process to come to closure on a crime that took place,

but the only way we're going to improve that is by creating strategic investments

in the services that we know are really meaningful and helpful to our residents.

And then secondly, when it comes to the SOARS,

it's very rare that we have residents come to us in a public hearing asking for cuts

and I mean that was a great opportunity to have hundreds of residents saying cut this service we

don't want this service that rarely happens and our residents are saying we don't want to be

surveyed by Zen City we're tired of the pop-ups on our social media feed and not knowing what

else they're looking at when they're scrubbing data from our social media feeds. And I think

it's, I think it is a good source to take from because our residents are asking for us to stop

using that service. And I think this is a perfect way to get more resources into the civilian

investigators that we need. Thank you. Next, I will recognize Council Member Vita. Thank you,

Chair, so the I watched that presentation in Public Health and Safety about the group that St. Paul has pulled together around case solving and like investigations.

And I did hear them say that civilians help. But I also what I heard was that civilians need sworn cops to actually clear the case.

Like they can only do parts of the investigation. And then we need sworn officers to like take everything off the finish line.

So over the finish line, so where I keep getting confused with, like, adding more civilians is we don't have enough sworn officers to help the civilians.

So now do we get to a place where the civilians start to work on things and then we just got a huge backlog of cases that they've investigated and we don't have officers assigned to it?

I mean, it feels like we're working backwards here.

The goal should be, and money was taken away from that, the goal should be recruitment was what I heard in that presentation.

The goal should be training up officers because we got a lot of new officers coming in to the department that are going to need years of training and on-the-job work to be investigators.

But if we're going to work with what we have now, adding more civilians is not it.

Yes, they can come into the department, but they can only do so much without a sworn officer.

So I don't know, like, if this is going to help the case clearance if we don't have more police officers.

If we don't have more, and it's not just more police officers, because even if we were training, this is my understanding of that presentation.

Even if we were training the officers we have, the rate in which we can do that, it's not fast enough to get us there.

We have to go to some other resources to bring more experienced officers into the department so they can be at the investigative level.

I mean, I'm kind of just rambling on, Commissioner.

I don't know if you caught some questions in there, but that was my observation of that presentation.

presentation, it wasn't just that like, yeah, hire more civilians and more cases will be solved.

What was impressive about that presentation is how they talked about how they worked with the

more senior officers to get those cases over the finish line and like the training. And now we

don't have a training facility and like all these things that I feel like we're taking away from the

department is really the core of what we need to build the department up to complete investigations.

So that is one thing.

And then the second thing is the Zen City contract.

Of course, I had Warford residents who reached out to me and said, cut the Zen City contract.

And they named whatever amount, you know, the handful of residents who came here are the same ones who reached out to me in community and said, cut the contract.

And I think as a council member, it was up to me to say the truth about the contract.

is that you're not being surveyed.

Like, it is a survey on the Internet.

If you can participate in it or you can't.

We had a presentation from them about their affiliations here in public.

They answer questions that people had.

And this council voted for that contract.

Okay, not the one where you wanted, but a city council voted for this contract.

and so it wasn't like this wasn't something that came through council and didn't pass and so my

question about this Zen City contract is because we're under contract with this company if this

cut if this is cut do we still owe the money like how is this gonna are the city of Minneapolis

residents still gonna pay for this contract even if we cut it in this way through the chair

two things. One,

Council Member Vita,

I do, like

many of you, find that the

civilian investigators are important

to the work that we do.

I don't want to leave

that impression that they're not important

at all. They provide

a lot of value, but

they support our sworn

officers. They're not

the lead investigators.

It is that support

for our police department and the work they do, and they do provide value.

As far as the contractual obligation in terminating the contract,

I would have to defer that to the city attorney's office

as to what their opinion is, if we owe them money or not.

Okay. Can the city attorney please answer that question?

I need to understand what happens if the contract is cut at this point

because I thought we had like a multi-year contract with Zen City for a specific dollar amount.

And I guess the addition to that would be where are we in the contract with Zen City?

Like what's left?

That's to the city attorney, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, council members, so I just got sent the contract right now.

I don't know how far into it we are and how much money we owe them for.

Obviously, we have to pay them for services already rendered.

The termination clause allows for termination without cause with 30 days written notice.

Okay.

So we're just going to...

I don't know if we need a staff memo, but I'd like to know how much we've paid out on this contract already

and what are we going to get for what we've paid for so far.

We've noted that as a staff for administrative follow-up.

Because it could be paid out, right?

Did you give us an end date to this contract?

November 26th, I believe.

Of this year, of 2020.

Okay, so it's up in October.

Okay.

Council Member Vita, your time is about to expire.

Oh, I'm good.

Okay, wonderful.

Sounds good.

Council Member Chavez.

Thank you, Chair Chuck Tye.

I remember if I recall correctly in the presentation that we had where folks from St. Paul came

and we asked questions about the civilian investigators.

The police department did say that the two civilian investigators would be helpful and needed to the police department

and they would be happy if they had that because they would be assisting them in these investigations.

Obviously, there's limitations on what a civilian investigator can do,

But I do want to be very clear to the public and to folks here on the dais and to our staff that the police department did say that

They would they would they would they would find it helpful

Obviously it won't address everything that we are seeing in our community

But I just want to make it clear that this is a service that is desperately needed

And it is verified if you we watched a public health and safety committee

So I want to start with that and also

Would like to ask the authors if I could be included on not the budget amendment, but on the resolution itself

So the resolution urging the termination of the contract.

Well, clerks have noted that.

Wonderful.

Are you done with your...

Okay.

Put myself in queue.

So I wanted to just make sure...

I'm sorry. I think we're trying to figure out whether we have a clear answer right now on when this contract is set to expire, but not confirmed.

Oh, go ahead. Madam City Attorney.

Thank you, Council Vice President. I was looking at the contract as you were talking.

So according to the terms of the contract, it goes from November 9, 2023 through November 8, 2026.

November 2026.

and okay perfect thank you I do want to just just make some I'm trying to wrap

my head around this this discussion of the the limitations that civilian

investigators have and the the benefit that they add to to supplement the work

of sworn officers I think it just be helpful to know Commissioner if you can

tell me or how many civilian investigators are a part of the department right now. I can't recall

the number myself. Let me see if I have that for you. I do not have that in my notes, but I can

get it for you. Is there anyone that is available on hand right now while we're having the discussion

on this item? Okay. So I want two numbers. I want to know the total number of civilian

investigators in the department right now and the total number of sworn officers in the department

That's really the only thing I want to know.

So I've got three minutes of time on the clock.

I can just wait.

That's fine.

If you might be able to get an answer quickly.

Actually, since we have a couple other members in queue, I'm

going to recognize them so they can

.

That's fine.

That's fine.

That's fine.

That's fine.

That's fine.

That's fine.

I'm gonna recognize them so they can do what they.

Council Member Wansley followed by Council Member Vita.

Yeah, thank you, CVP, Chuck Tai.

In regards to the city attorney noting the contract terms in terms of deadlines,

there's a discrepancy because the RCA in LEMS file says that the contract

that was approved in 2023 says that it actually expires.

Let me double check.

Yeah, it started October 7, 2023, and it goes through October 6, 2026.

So I don't know what.

Madam City Attorney.

Council Vice President, Council Vice President.

I'm just looking at the document that was sent to me,

which is the executed contract that has it going through November 8, 2026.

Was there adjustment or a change?

Because I'm just looking at the LEMS file, which has something completely different.

It has the October 6, 2026 date.

I don't know.

So I would like a staff follow-up on that to understand what are the changes.

but regardless of it, and it sounds like both what you have and also in the LEMS file,

there was that termination clause baked in that we could, within 30-day notice,

be able to terminate that contract.

And that assumes that all balances due will also be paid.

So there would be no financial, like, lingerings on our end that we would need to cover,

which is why we were intentional about taking from the contractual service budget.

because there would be now vacancies should this contract be terminated.

That's not a question for you, though, City Attorney.

I just wanted to note the changes there.

Awesome.

Do you have numbers for you?

I do have some information for you, Chair.

It appears that we have 29 civilian investigators.

It appears that 28 of those positions are filled.

As far as the amount remaining on the contract, it appears that there's about $112,500 remaining on the contract.

Wonderful.

And do you have a number for me on the total sworn?

I'm trying to get that number for you.

I don't know the exact number of total sworn.

Excellent.

Councilmember Vita.

Thank you.

I had a question kind of similar to yours because one of the other things in that presentation was about the number of cases that should be assigned to officers.

And so I can't remember.

I do remember when I saw the presentation, I thought, wow, that's a really low number of cases,

lower than what I thought the number of cases should be for officers.

So just wondering if anyone who's on that committee remembers or if we can get the information.

It was a very low number of cases.

Well, I shouldn't say low.

It was a number of cases that should be assigned to an officer,

and it was based on, like, what kind of crimes they were.

So just wondering, like, do we do the same thing with civilians?

Do we assign numbers of cases?

Do they go – are these civilians going to get assigned to specific officers

or specific crimes and how all of that's going to work out also.

I'm just looking to the chair of the committee to see if we can get something.

Council Member Wanzi, do you have the answer?

Yeah, just clarification.