Welcome to our adjourned meeting for December 16th.

At this time, my name is Elliot Payne.

I'm the president of Minneapolis City Council.

At this time, I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll

to verify the presence of a quorum.

Council Member Pomisano.

Present.

Council Member Chowdhury.

Present.

Council Member Cashman.

Present.

Council Member Osmond.

Present.

Council Member Rainville.

Present.

Council Member Chavez.

Present.

Council Member Vita is absent.

Council Member Ellison.

Here.

Council Member Kosky.

Present.

Council Member Wansley.

Present.

Council Member Jenkins.

Present.

Vice President Chabtai.

Present.

President Payne.

Present.

There are 12 members present.

Let the record reflect that we have a quorum.

I am going to call on our City Clerk to remind us about why we're here and what we're trying to accomplish.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Last Tuesday evening on December 9th, as you know, the Council adopted a series of resolutions

collectively constitute the city's fiscal year 2026 budget as provided under city charter section

4.4. Those resolutions were transmitted to the mayor the next day on December 10. That started

the five-day clock provided under city charter during which time the mayor may consider those

acts and either approve them, veto them, or allow them to become effective without signature.

Moments ago, the mayor did return those resolutions to the clerk's office. Some of them approved and

signed and some of them returned unsigned, which means that those resolutions are deemed

approved. The mayor did sign the general appropriation resolution, which is the allocation

and appropriation of funds to all operating departments for 2026. The purpose of tonight's

meeting is twofold. First and foremost, this meeting is for the council to consider any veto

by the mayor of any of those resolutions. As I just noted, the mayor did not veto any of the

budget acts, so it's not necessary for tonight's adjourned meeting to consider and react to

a mayoral veto. The second purpose then for this meeting is to consider if it wishes any further

actions by the council to refine or perfect its budget actions. I understand there could have been

some regard here in that measure from a procedural perspective, as I've communicated to council

leadership, in order for the council to consider any action on those budget resolutions to refine

or perfect them, we first need a motion to amend those prior acts. It's purely a procedural motion.

It requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of those members who are present for the meeting,

assuming that we have a quorum, and we do, in order to consider those acts that have already

been adopted but have not yet been published or become legally effective. Because of those

circumstances, that procedural vote is necessary to enable the council to fulfill its financial

authority under the city charter at this meeting. Assuming that a two-thirds affirmative vote on a

motion to amend prior action is adopted, then the council could, during this meeting, consider any

further perfections to those prior actions. Regardless of if the council wishes to proceed

on such refinements, it would first need a motion, as I said, to amend previous actions. It requires

a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members who are present for the meeting to be adopted.

with 12 members present. That means we would need eight affirmative votes in order to

get that item in front of us. So, Mr. President, I think I'll stop there in terms of explaining

the purpose of the meeting and the procedure to consider any further perfections or refinements

to budgetary asks. If there is a motion, then we can act on that, and I'm happy to provide

any further procedural advice that might be necessary after that.

So just to clarify, the ability to make those procedural changes will require a two-thirds majority of those present, not an absolute two-thirds majority.

So that would be eight versus nine.

Correct, Mr. President.

Okay.

I'll call on Council Member Paul Misano.

Mr. Chair, I would yield to the Budget Chair if she would like to make a motion, or I can just speak for myself here.

Vice President Chug Tai.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Council Member.

I will move to reconsider the general appropriation resolution for 2026 to make three amendments and ask for a second, after which I am happy to speak to the substance.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, President Payne.

I was going to move to adjourn this meeting until 645 tonight so that we can make sure that the mayor and his staff have time to veto any ordinances that they're going to veto from Thursday if this is our last scheduled meeting of the year.

There is unfinished business associated with that.

We have a motion on the floor.

Mr. Clerk, do we have to take up that first motion?

Mr. President, the motion that's been made and seconded is before you.

If that motion carries, then, of course, there are other opportunities for motions to be made, including the motion that Councilmember Cashman brought forward.

That, however, would have the effect of adjourning this meeting to a future date and time, which, if carried, would carry forward the motion pending and any other further business that the body may consider.

I'll call on Vice President Chuck Tai.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. President.

I know the proper motion before us right now is considering these three amendments to the 2026 city budget.

I want to outline what is included in them.

The clerk did walk and pass out a copy on the third and fourth pages.

You will see outlined in yellow the specific changes that we're talking about

and on the second to last sheet, actually.

So this is a product of extensive discussion

and negotiation with the administration and the mayor,

which ultimately did result in a budget,

a signed budget that was returned to us today

as outlined by the clerk.

And a part of achieving a signed budget was amendments to three or refinements to three amendments that were taken up during markup.

The first of these is amendment number 12 in the general appropriation resolution.

But what you may know is amendment number 13 or 17, sorry, as part of the nonfatal shooting task force.

Here, there is a language change that keeps the funding whole, doesn't make any changes other than replacing the words for staffing to implement with to support the administration's plan to create a non-fatal shooting task force.

The second amendment is to emergency housing vouchers. That's number 17 on this resolution. And it replaces the way that we are going to achieve $1.4 million for emergency housing voucher implementation is a decrease by a million dollars to the health department and reappropriating existing resources.

from an overage to the city clerk's office.

And along with that, the existing source from the city attorney's office,

this comes along with a written commitment that will be included in the LIMS file

from the mayor to include for the next three years resources to implement emergency housing vouchers.

And then finally, a change to the Amendment number 32 on this list on civilian investigators,

also further just clarifying language as approved by the city attorney's office.

Alongside these formal changes are a letter that will be attached to the LIMS file and

was sent to the council earlier this evening from the mayor outlining a commitment to implementing

all of the budget amendments approved and adopted by the council along with that three-year

commitment to emergency housing vouchers. Thank you, Mr. President.

Councilmember Palmisano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll go ahead and make my pitch. I see where the

votes are going to land. The mayor signed this budget in good faith. There was a deal with the

city council that took a lot of trust that took a lot of conversation and that took a lot of

believing that the mayor and the council could work together. I appreciate and trusted council

Vice President Chugtie as budget chair to operate in good faith on the council's behalf.

And I think that she did exactly that. I think she did exactly that for us.

The council was ready to move forward, and now we are not. That's a weird change of course

if this doesn't move forward. A last-minute change of heart, a last-minute let's add some

other things onto this already negotiated deal. Your actions today in this speak loudly to how

you wish to operate in this working relationship called local governance. Those of you that are

returning, I ask that you leave this all here in this term. Let's work better together next year.

Councilmember Allison. Thank you. I want to speak a little bit to why this is coming forward

because I think it's important for us to have a bit of context. Usually I'd save this for

the substantive item, but I think that this is relevant to how council, I think this information

might be relevant to how council members vote on this action now. When we waded into this

budget process, I know that the council leadership had asked the mayor to make sure that we were

not going to be on a collision course with any layoffs within the enterprise. I think

that we committed ourselves to making sure that we weren't going to further any amendments

that would result in layoffs. And I think that through the budgeting process and through

discussion with leadership in the administration, I think that what I've come to be convinced

of is that at least one of our amendments will result in layoffs. And not only will

it result in layoffs, but we have alternative monies to prevent that course of action.

And in the housing voucher item, there were three sources that we were going to use.

One source was a staff member from the mayor's office.

One source was a FTE currently not filled in the CAO's office.

And one was money that we used to fund civilian roles in the police office,

doing things like data analytics and other alternatives to policing that we all value

within this work as we move forward and become a city that is not a police-only city.

And it is the positions within the police department, these are AFSCME positions, these

are union positions, that if we remove those dollars, the money is not there to fund people.

In order to fill a million-dollar hole ongoing, the only ongoing expense that they have there

is personnel.

personnel. And so they're going to have to get rid of personnel in order to fill that

gap. The amendment that Councilmember Wansley brought forward, the item that Councilmember

Wansley brought forward is critically important work. It is. And I know that she's going

to speak to why she disagrees with this course of action that I'm recommending here, but

I do want to recognize that this course of action is critically important. And I know

that this money is attractive because it is ongoing. That means into perpetuity. But ongoing

money that results in four people losing jobs in an economy that is in a job market that's

one of the worst that it's been since 2008, which I hope a lot of us remember what it

was like to try to find a job back then, I don't think that's a good message to send

to our staff and I don't think it's a good message to send to the public. And so for

that reason, even though the monies that we were replacing Council Member Wansley's source

with are not ongoing. They're not into perpetuity. I think that they get the work going. They

get it kick-started. They come with a commitment from the mayor to implement this work. And,

you know, not to speak to people's motive, but we do know that in the past we have had,

we have had, we have not had the commitment from the administration to implement work.

And hence, we have not seen that work implemented. We've got a different commitment right now here

on this. So the work can be real, not just the money. The work can be real. And so we've

got a commitment that this work is going to be funded from a specific source into three

years. And we maintain the ongoing money from the CAO's office so that when we do inevitably

hit that cliff where this work needs to be funded, it's not a cliff that goes to zero.

It'll be a cliff that goes to about a quarter million. And in local government, we deal

with cliffs, we resolve them all the time. I think that we trade ongoing money for permanent

implementation, a commitment to implement, and a three-year commitment and a promise

of no layoffs. I think that's what we're trading this for. I think that's why this

action is worth it. It is long-term. It's not like there's no loss to the item, but

But I think that it's worth it.

I think what we're trading is worth it.

So I hope my colleagues will vote with me here for us

to open this item back up, for us to make this amendment,

for us to begin this work, and to ensure

that we don't have any layoffs this year at City Hall.

That's all.

Councilmember Wansley.

Thank you, President Payne.

The council has spent several weeks working on the 2026 budget, and we did so through a transparent and democratic process.

And the public had the opportunity to follow the process, give input, and see decisions being made in real time about the programs and services that impact their day-to-day lives.

And hundreds of working-class people took that opportunity to participate in our democratic process.

At Residence Day, it continued organizing around their priorities.

They came to City Hall and testified.

They signed petitions and they even called and emailed our offices.

And council took all of that information and did about a dozen hours of budget debate and discussion in the public about our budget.

And some of our votes was unanimous. Some were divided.

But it was done through a transparent and democratic process.

And representatives went to bat for the things that their constituents need.

votes were taken and compromise compromises. And I want to note numerous compromises before what was

even approved last Tuesday were made to get to a point where many of our colleagues could support

with the majority our budget amendments. And then again, at the end of the process,

the whole council voted unanimously to adopt a people centers budget that meaningfully addressed

some of the most pressing equity and quality of life issues in our city. And in light of that,

I am incredibly disappointed that Council Vice President Chuck Tye and Councilmember Ellison chose to spend the past 48 hours in closed-door negotiations where Mayor Frye to undermine that very budget that Council unanimously adopted.

And I have received a press release about 15 minutes ago prior to this meeting claiming that the mayor and the budget chair had reached their agreement on a budget,

and I had no clue what they were referring to since the Council had already reached an agreement on the budget by adopting it a week ago.

And whatever agreements were made between these individuals and the mayor don't represent, and I need to state this, do not represent all of council.

And they certainly don't represent working class residents in the city who weren't invited to backroom deals being made in City Hall.

And this is exactly the behavior that inspires regular people to not have trust in politicians.

And I want to emphasize my disappointment with my colleagues who believe that it's appropriate to undercut not only the work of an entire legislative body, but more importantly, undercut the public process in an attempt to eliminate that from the overall discussion around how resources get spent.

And both of you had multiple opportunities to engage in this process and to protect the integrity of the amendments for the several weeks that we had the debate on it.

And you opted not to.

And instead, you are proposing, just for re-emphasis on this, switching emergency housing vouchers from ongoing funding to one-time funding, which, as you both have acknowledged, will result in a fiscal cliff.

And that is going against the specific parameters our government partners asked when I started working on this project almost two years ago.

And Mayor Frye's staff was present in those meetings where it was clearly stated that ongoing funding was non-negotiable to ensure the success of a Housing First response to homelessness.

And their request was aligned with Housing First best practices.

and giving families housing for one or three years and then terminating it will result in a multi-million dollar fiscal cliff

and will leave hundreds of people being put back on the street somewhere between 2027 and 2029.

Why would we entertain that when we already have an approved budget that provides ongoing funding?

And the suggestion is, when that happens, bring a promissory note from Mayor Fry saying, I got you.

I am disappointed that some of my colleagues choose to take the bait regarding layoffs of workers.

As all of you know, these are operational decisions that only the mayor can make,

and this isn't the first time that he's used sensationalism to sway votes.

We saw this in regards to him stating that he would cut North Common Fundings if we passed funding for emergency shelters,

only to suddenly change his mind once the votes were taken.

Another example is this year when NPD overspent their budget by nearly $20 million.

The mayor found ways to accommodate that without laying off anyone.

Dangling jobs in front of this body to uppin weeks of work is incredibly cynical and misleading,

and I will not normalize negotiations based in bad faith and take place behind closed doors,

and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I feel incredibly proud, however, of the work that my council members and colleagues did,

who did take the time to pursue this process in good faith.

And if there were ever technical or minor amendments that we needed to make around budget amendments to get you all support, you all know I had an open door policy and was willing to talk to every single one of you through that process.

And even said, if there were changes that need to be made, like what we're talking about considering, those were easily able to be accommodated early next year.

And you decide to undercut that today.

And I have repeatedly said that to Council Member Ellison and Council Vice President Chuck Tye.

Yet for some reason, we are here disrupting the process to accommodate significant changes that were not vetted by myself as the author of the amendments, as well as the body as a whole.

And we should have felt confident going into 2026 with our unanimously supported budget, which invests in so many of our priorities that we know impacts our residents from housing, from unsheltered residents, for stable homes, stable schools, traffic calming, co-enforcement, 38th Thrive.

there was so much that actually was reflected of the needs of our residents in what was passed unanimously last week.

And there is no reason for this reconsideration today that undoes all that work and sets the clock backwards on actually who actually shows up for working class people in our city amongst this body.

So I will not be supporting the reconsideration. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, President Payne. I just want to note that there are two ordinances that we passed on Thursday, the franchise fee for gas and the franchise fee for electric that will provide the funding needed for this budget.

And until those are signed, I am having a really hard time supporting a budget that wouldn't necessarily even have the money in it for the $4 million for weatherization and retrofitting that I've spent the last six months developing as a policy.

And so I've been very clear about this to council leadership and to the mayor that he should sign those ordinances

And then I will be more than happy to reconsider this budget to adjust for

the changes and avoid layoffs

but I

That's why I want to adjourn until 645 so that we can make sure to get those signatures and then we can pass this budget deal

Councilmember Jenkins

Thank You president Payne I am in queue for councilmember

Council Member Rainville.

Council Member Rainville.

Thank you.

So I just want to speak to my gratitude for Chair Chuck Tai, for Budget Chair.

I voted for you for the Budget Chair because I trust your judgment,

and you led us through this process.

I also want to speak to the leadership of Council Member Ellison.

You're going to slowly be missed.

Your ability to compromise is noted here.

And, you know, under the system we operate under,

the mayor has veto power over the budget.

and he's merely exercising what he sees fit for the city.

We need to trust that.

He won the election.

This almost seems to me to be a referendum on the mayor's election,

that some people don't accept the fact that he won.

Ascribing motive.

Not seeing anyone left in queue.

Wait, so what's the motion?

The motion is to reconsider the budget.

we have to dispose of the motion to reconsider first now councilmember cashman has noted that

she would really like a resolution to this question of the franchise fees for this vote

and had suggested a adjournment we could take a brief recess while we have this item on the table

correct Mr. Clerk? Mr. President yes we can take a brief recess I will note we

have captioners until 7 so we can work within that timeline and we I know I

heard councilmember Cashman suggest the journeying to tomorrow or another date so

we certainly can adjourn tonight for a brief bit if we need a recess and we

could certainly consider a postponement of this meeting to another date and time

let's take let's take a recess to 645 630 yeah let's take a recess to 630 and

see if we can get a resolution for councilmember Cashman if there if

there's no objection you can declare the meeting in recess if there is an

objection we'd need to vote is there an objection

I'm on cue.

Council Member Chavez.

I'd like to make a motion to whatever the motion is to come back at 6.30 p.m.

Recess the meeting until 6.30 p.m.

6.30, okay.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Second.

I'll have the clerk call the roll.

Council Member Pomisano.

Aye.

Council Member Chowdhury.

Aye.

Council Member Cashman.

Councilmember Osmond.

Councilmember Rainville.

Councilmember Chavez.

Councilmember Ellison.

Councilmember Kosky.

Councilmember Wansley.

Councilmember Jenkins.

Vice President Chugtay.

President Payne.

12 ayes.

All right.

That carries and we are adjourned until recess.

We're taking a brief recess.

we'll be back at let's say 6 40 now

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

we are ready

At this time, I will ask the clerk to call the roll to prove the presence of a quorum.

Council Member Palmisano.

Present.

Council Member Chowdhury.

Present.

Council Member Cashman.

Present.

Council Member Osmond.

Present.

Council Member Rainbow.

Present.

Council Member Chavez.

Present.

Councilmember Vita is absent.

Councilmember Ellison?

Here.

Councilmember Kosky?

Present.

Councilmember Wansley?

Present.

Councilmember Jenkins?

Present.

Vice President Shugtai?

Present.

President Payne?

Present.

There are 12 members present.

Let the record reflect we have a quorum.

At this time, we have a motion to reconsider the budget in front of us.

Did anybody else want to get into queue, or are we ready to call the roll?

looks like we are ready to call the roll.

I'm on cue.

Oh, sorry.

Council Member Chavez.

Thank you, Council President Payne.

Yeah, I just want to speak a little bit on the motion to reconsider.

I think this vote was really difficult for me because I feel like we're being put in a really difficult position to reconsider a budget that was adopted unanimously with what I would call last-minute changes.

I think what particularly makes this hard is the emergency housing voucher component that is being moved from ongoing funding to one-year commitment with one-time funding and then a three-year commitment via a letter that I would consider a pinky promise,

which makes me really stressed of what that would mean for the program in the following years after the three-year fiscal cliff that this program will face.

I think the position I'm landing, though, is considering more than just that.

I think that it shouldn't have had to take in a deal to get guarantees that the budget would be implemented.

That should just happen no matter what.

And I hope that moving forward, when we adopt future budgets, it shouldn't rely on that to get budget implemented.

When the city council funds something, it should just happen.

Those programs should be implemented by the administration.

We're not Trump's America in Minneapolis.

The other thing that I will say, though, is that while I wasn't in the negotiation table,

my understanding is the negotiations happened to make sure that we can get something signed,

given the implications of not being able to overturn a veto unless changes in saving staff from AFSCME would happen.

So with that in consideration, I will be supporting the reconsideration.

consideration but I will be loud and clear that I am not happy that this is

happening because I don't think that it needed to happen in this fashion with

last-minute changes and other components I think that if we are going

to do this today which it looks like what we are because I'm supporting it I

guess then we have to dig really deep and figuring out how we are going to

actually make sure that this emergency housing component is actually going to

be ongoing for the future because I still don't fully trust that it's going to exist for three

years. I am very nervous that the mayor is going to do what he did this year, which was slow walk

the emergency housing vouchers and not implement them. And I would hope that this is up and running

next year, but I have my own trust issues with that. So I at least wanted to speak on this motion

today. I think that it was really disappointing to see which budget amendments here were targeted,

which is specifically Councilmember Wansley's every single time.

But my understanding is that without this, we would have not been able to overturn a veto.

So that is why I am voting for it.

Councilmember Wansley.

Thank you, President Payne.

I just also need to note that while I appreciate the symbolic gestures of support for the emergency housing vouchers,

that does nothing to make sure that up to 150 families are not put on the streets come 2027.

That, in a promissory note, also is not going to be effective in making sure we keep those folks

off the streets. And I look forward, I know Council Member Ellison, you will not be back here

to see this through, but for the rest of you all who feel very confident about underselling or

underfunding emergency housing vouchers. I look forward to seeing the creativity you come up with

to find a million dollars when this faces a gap early next year. And I also just need to know in

the sense of that too of if you really respected the work, not even my work, around emergency

housing vouchers, which has been three years in, there would not have been the continuous goal

post-changing that we've experienced in this situation where it went from

Mayor Fry stating his ultimate bottom line was, I do not want to see my staff be laid off.

And then this body, along with myself, specifically my amendments, worked diligently with

council leadership and the administration to make sure that we did not do that. And we actually

accomplished that. And then in the last minute, it went from, okay, we actually met the mayor's

goals on that to, oh, well, let's open up these other things. And again, thank you for highlighting

that it's the black woman who did the most work throughout the past couple years who brought

forward homelessness issues where we pass ordinances to do reporting, but we have no

resources. We have no housing to then give those folks when they're asked to move from an encampment.

This is essentially what this takes away as a resource.

And to say that, fine, I'm okay with giving one-time resources to that and letting a fiscal cliff happen.

And I'm okay with changing the goalposts on work that my office poured in with different partners for several years.

I am glad in this process I got to see my colleagues truly be themselves and also be okay with undercutting working class people in this process.

It's not even about your ability and willingness to undercut me, but the fact that it was undermining homelessness.

And you all don't get to walk away from this meeting feeling good about a celebratory promise from Mayor Frye when you know what you're doing to homeless people.

When you know you are reducing commitments around public safety.

And giving a million back to MPD by supporting this reduction in emergency housing vouchers who overspent their budget.

by saying, Ashley, Mayor Fry, we're giving you also credibility to not implement off-duty,

to collect $1.4 million that's currently being subsidized by residents here,

and who are subsidizing the $20 million that NPD nearly went over.

So I can't wait to see the pictures from the press conference of you shaking hands with Mayor Fry,

and I hope you keep that same energy when unhoused people are coming to the chambers asking next year,

what do I do? I got to know this thing I'm being put out because there's there's a fiscal cliff.

So I hope you keep that in your spirits as you're taking this vote.

Seeing no one else left in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilmember Palmasano. Aye. Councilmember Chowdhury. Aye.

Councilmember Cashman.

Aye.

Councilmember Osmond.

No.

Councilmember Rainville.

Aye.

Councilmember Chavez.

Aye.

Councilmember Ellison.

Aye.

Councilmember Kosky.

No.

Councilmember Wansley.

No.

Councilmember Jenkins.

Aye.

Vice President Shugtai.

Aye.

President Payne.

Aye.

There are nine ayes and three nays.

That carries.

Next, we have to take up.

So that opens this up for amendment.

Now we have to take up the amendment.

There are three amendments highlighted here.

We could take them all at once, or we could divide the vote into individual amendments.

Would people want to take this all up at once?

Sounds like all at once.

I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilmember Allison.

Thank you.

I did want to speak to this one last time because I know that before we were speaking on this just on whether or not we were going to reconsider this.

Being on this body and having to make difficult decisions about where we put our dollars and what kind of programs that we put our money towards and who ultimately is the beneficiary of those dollars, it's hard work.

You know, you will never hear any argument from me there.

And having the kind of either trust in the mayor, which I certainly don't have, or just

pure distrust in the mayor or the council, which I know is rampant on this body, to me,

it is beside the point.

We cannot, I cannot make budgetary decisions based on which one of my colleagues I simply

trust more.

I made this decision based on real money in the budget.

In the way that I could discern it.

And if people on this dais feel comfortable calling the mayor's bluff and waking up tomorrow

to a story about three, four AFSPE members getting their walking papers, packing their

box, I'm not comfortable with that.

And Councilmember Chavez put it really well, it is unnerving to me that we would see programs

not implemented year in, year out, but it has been what we've seen.

And so a program that has not only money in it, but a real commitment to be implemented,

I will take that over a program on paper any single day.

That's my position.

And while I do typically like to take a high road when my commitment to working class people

is questioned, and it's been questioned, and my commitment to being a radical leftist or

whatever, when I face all those criticisms, we take it in stride, it's fine, I'll take

it in stride today.

But the work that I've put in is beyond reproach by anybody on this dais.

And so I just leave us there and I want us to take seriously that people are going to

be housed as in for real, not just on paper, not just writing on a piece of paper, but

the program that Councilmember Wansley has built is going to become real as a result

of today.

And I think that that's worth something.

And we are also going to prevent layoffs at a time, like, again, I can't stress this

enough, we're also going to prevent layoffs in a job market that is terrible for people

right now.

So I don't care if you feel good about the vote or not, but those are the consequences

of the vote that we're taking tonight.

And I know that I feel good about it.

That's all.

no one else left in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the amendments in front

of us.

Council Member Pomazano.

Aye.

Council Member Chowdhury.

Aye.

Council Member Cashman.

Aye.

Council Member Osmond.

Aye.

Council Member Rainville.

Aye.

Council Member Chavez.

Aye.

Council Member Ellison.

Aye.

Council Member Kosky.

Aye.

Council Member Wansley is absent.

Council Member Jenkins.

Aye.

Vice President Chugtay.

Aye.

President Payne.

Aye.

There are 11 ayes.

That carries.

And then does that complete our business, Mr. Clerk,

or do we need to now adopt the full budget as amended?

Mr. President, that completes the business that we have before us tonight.

If there is nothing else, the budget is complete.

It is the budget packet that was adopted last Tuesday

with three changes that were just adopted in the amendments.

And while I have the microphone,

I'd be remiss if I didn't say to the Council Vice President, thank you for all your work

on behalf of the workforce of the city and the people who live here.

I happen to be one of them, and I appreciate all of your work to get the city budget done

before I break for the holidays.

Thank you, Aisha.

With that, all business before us is complete, and we stand adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.