Minneapolis City Council Budget Committee (Adjourned) — Revisions to Mayor Fry’s 2026 Recommended Budget

On Tuesday, December 9, 2025 (morning session), the Minneapolis City Council Budget Committee (Chair Aisha Chughtai) reconvened an adjourned meeting to continue voting on amendments to Mayor Jacob Frey’s 2026 recommended budget, resuming at Amendment 29. The committee verified a quorum (initially 9 members present; additional members joined later) and proceeded through multiple budget amendments—several involving CPED/Public Works funding, new studies/programs, and staffing—passing most items with large majorities. A proposed financial policy change (Amendment 38) was discussed in detail but laid over to the evening meeting for further revision.

Discussion Items

• Amendment 29 — Nicollet Avenue Public Restrooms (Value Capture District Fund; ongoing funding; includes 0.75 FTE admin/management time within Public Works)

  • Council Member Cashman (author) moved the item and described using Value Capture District funding (expires in 2038) to support contracted public restroom facilities, envisioned for Nicollet Ave initially; cited research and other cities’ experiences, including popularity leading to permanence.
  • Council Member Rainville expressed support and asked to be added as an author.
  • Council Member Palmisano expressed concerns about whether ongoing funding was appropriate versus a shorter pilot and raised operational/safety oversight concerns (e.g., staffing/monitoring needs), ultimately stating he could not support the amendment as written.
  • Tim Sexton, Public Works Director, said Public Works assumed some funding would cover administration/engagement/contract management, likely within Transportation Planning & Programming, and that staffing was workable if included in the amendment’s total funding.
  • Council Member Cashman stated expectations were set at about 5 restrooms (noting $700,000 could fund up to 8 in earlier discussions) to provide buffer for management/contracting.
  • Council Member Chowdhury expressed support, highlighted vendor/technology concepts (e.g., access cards, accountability for vandalism), and asked to be added as an author.
  • Council Member Chavez expressed support and asked to be added as an author.

• Amendment 30 — Nighttime Business License Inspectors (CPED; ongoing; funding moved from Public Works)

  • Council Member Rainville (author) argued the city lacks staff presence after ~5–6 p.m. to help manage and support the “nighttime economy” in corridors such as Dinkytown, Uptown, East Hennepin, Lake Street, West Broadway.
  • Council President Payne expressed support, citing constituent feedback and issues with neighborhood bars in residential areas; referenced a constituent door-knock survey with 60 pamphlets distributed and 45 responses documenting concerns.

• Amendment 31 (Revised) — Grocery Store Development Funding (Great Streets Fund; one-time $200,000; pre-development; contingent on matching dollars and qualifying organizations)

  • Council Member Wonsley (author) (with Council Member Ellison as co-author—requested clerks add Ellison) described allocating $200,000 for pre-development support to develop a grocery store in an area with high food insecurity (“food apartheid” per Homegrown Council framing). The revised language required bids with matching dollars from a qualifying organization (e.g., nonprofit, CDFI) via an RFP.
  • Council Member Vita opposed, stating Ward 4’s need was sustaining existing grocers (e.g., North Market) rather than starting new ones; referenced North Market nearly closing at the end of November and detailed pricing/discount changes (50% off produce reduced to 25% led to a “huge decline,” then returned to 50% off for two days/week).
  • Council Member Osmond supported but questioned limiting eligibility; Wonsley clarified it was not nonprofit-only and included organizations like CDFIs.
  • Council Member Rainville supported Vita’s position and asked about flexibility to include existing grocers; Wonsley said the amendment was specifically for new grocery pre-development.
  • Council Member Cashman asked about flexibility (e.g., fee waivers, storefront subsidies) and whether private companies could qualify; Wonsley emphasized focus on public-interest/mission-oriented entities and that large private chains typically have access to capital.
  • CPED Director Erik Hansen stated $200,000 is not sufficient to open a grocery store and would need leveraging; indicated it would likely require re-tenanting an existing building (not new construction) and described structural challenges: thin margins, distributor relationships, and regional competitive pressure. He noted a space likely needs north of 15,000 sq. ft. to work, and cited the Worth Co-op space as likely too small.

• Amendment 32 — Commercial Adaptive Reuse Study (CPED; one-time $125,000)

  • Council Member Cashman (author) proposed a study to evaluate the public benefit and potential financial incentives for adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial buildings.
  • Cited context/statistics discussed during the meeting: Q3 projection that property taxes were $17.4 million under budget, downtown commercial estimated market value fell 9.5% from 2024 to 2025, and in-person work was about 75% of pre-COVID levels in late 2025.

• Amendment 33 — Vacant Retail Activation (CPED program; funded from Downtown Assets Fund; citywide cost-share concept)

  • Council Member Cashman (author) (co-authored by Chair Chughtai) proposed a cost-share program to help property owners physically adapt vacant retail spaces (e.g., subdivision into smaller bays, adding entrances) to attract tenants; described as a “2.0” evolution of Vibrant Storefronts (moving from rent subsidies to physical-space improvements).
  • Council Member Palmisano flagged that Amendment 33 plus earlier amendments (26 and 27, referenced but not included in this transcript segment) would transfer $2.2 million from the Downtown Assets source and raised concern about relying heavily on a single funding source while trying to revitalize downtown.

• Amendment 34 — Invest in Child Care Workers (CPED Workforce Development Fund; earmarks ~$102,000 from a $14 million fund; supports 1 FTE)

  • Council Member Wonsley (author) described funding an FTE to build clearer pathways into early childhood education careers to address workforce shortages that contribute to high childcare costs.
  • Council President Payne supported and connected it to development realities in his ward (a new Aldi planned with a condo space intended for childcare) and referenced complex tax policy issues that can determine whether childcare centers can open.
  • Council Member Palmisano opposed, asserting Minneapolis Public Schools already has a career pathways program and expressing concern about duplication; Wonsley responded that early childhood education (pre-preschool) is a distinct gap.

• Amendment 35 — Enterprise Policy Management System Staff Directive ($0; carryover/rollover timing issue)

  • Council President Payne (author) described needing action to roll over previously budgeted funding and proceed with vendor selection/implementation for an enterprise policy management platform.
  • The Clerk explained it would support development, management, and public access to city policies.

• Amendment 36 — “Policy for the People” (Legislative branch staffing support; $25,000 appropriation + staff direction report)

  • Council Member Wonsley (author) described a revised approach: rather than pulling substantial ongoing funding from the Mayor’s Office (noted as an earlier draft), the amendment used $25,000 to fund vendor-supported HR classification work (due to HR backlog) to help finalize already-in-motion legislative/clerk office positions supporting committee work.
  • Included a staff directive requiring progress reporting no later than March 2026.

• Amendment 37 (Revised) — Audit Department FTEs (restoring positions cut from Mayor’s recommended budget; adds capacity to City Auditor Special Review & Advisory Services)

  • Council President Payne (author) described building capacity for the City Auditor to take on major oversight investigations, citing examples discussed: investigations related to the shooting of Davis Maturi and the death of Allison Luchere.
  • Council Member Palmisano supported but cautioned against overly rapid departmental growth and urged monitoring.
  • Council Member Cashman raised concerns about sourcing positions from CPED/Public Works rather than politically appointed positions; Deputy COO Brett Gelli said vacant positions were identified during negotiations as acceptable funding sources.
  • Public Works Director Tim Sexton explained impacts of losing vacant positions: slower project development and reduced engagement capacity (Transportation Planning & Programming) and slower response capacity in sign production/installation (Traffic/Parking services sign shop).

• Amendment 38 — Budgetary Control Financial Policy (zero-dollar policy change; discussion held; laid over)

  • Chair Chughtai (author/lead) introduced a proposed update to budgetary controls to improve guardrails and accountability over spending and implementation of council-appropriated funds.
  • The City Attorney (Kristen Anderson) walked through major components:
    • Clarifies legal “department/fund” level control and permissible internal shifts within a department’s top-line appropriation.
    • Requires quarterly reporting transparency for certain finance-authorized payments (e.g., payroll exceptions).
    • Defines and adds controls/reporting for Council dedicated (earmarked) funds, including reporting deadlines (spending plan by April 30; status by August 31; and within 60 days reporting if an earmark can’t be executed or is more than needed).
    • Adds reporting requirements for anticipated overspending and monthly reporting the following year if a department ends the year over budget.
    • Provides the Legislative Department view-only access to city financial systems.
  • Council Member Cashman asked whether it applied retroactively to prior-year earmarks; City Attorney stated it is prospective (applies beginning with the 2026 budget).
  • Council Members Chowdhury and Wonsley framed the policy as addressing repeated issues where council appropriations were not implemented by the administration; Wonsley referenced examples such as unexecuted housing voucher efforts and other programmatic earmarks.
  • The committee laid over Amendment 38 to the evening meeting because Council Member Wonsley indicated a revision would be brought later that day, to avoid needing reconsideration.

Key Outcomes

• Amendment 29 (Nicollet Ave Public Restrooms): PASSED 10–1 (Palmisano no). Co-authors added: Rainville, Chowdhury, Chavez.
• Amendment 30 (Nighttime Business License Inspectors): PASSED 10–1 (Palmisano no).
• Amendment 31 Revised (Grocery Store Pre-Development Funding $200,000): PASSED 8–4 (No: Rainville, Vita, Jenkins, Palmisano).
• Amendment 32 (Commercial Adaptive Reuse Study $125,000): PASSED 12–0.
• Amendment 33 (Vacant Retail Activation cost-share program): PASSED 12–0.
• Amendment 34 (Invest in Child Care Workers; ~$102,000 for 1 FTE from $14M fund): PASSED 11–1 (Palmisano no).
• Amendment 35 (Enterprise Policy Management System; $0 directive): PASSED 12–0.
• Amendment 36 (Policy for the People; $25,000 + March 2026 report directive): PASSED 12–0.
• Amendment 37 Revised (Audit Department FTEs): PASSED 12–0.
• Amendment 38 (Budgetary Control Financial Policy): DISCUSSED; LAID OVER to the evening council meeting for revision.
• The committee voted to forward approved items to the full Council and adjourned, planning to reconvene during the evening proceedings (after the public hearing) to take up remaining items (including Amendment 38 and other new/revised amendments referenced by the chair).