Good afternoon and welcome to the regular meeting of the committee of the whole for May 19th, 2026.

My name is Aisha Chungtai, and I'm the vice chair of this committee.

Chair Chowdry is out of state on business matters.

I'm going to call to order this meeting and ask the clerk to call the role to verify the presence of a quorum.

Councilmember Pain is absent.

Wandsley.

Present.

Vita.

Present.

Warren.

Osman.

Present.

Schaefer, present.

Stevenson.

Present.

Chavez.

Present.

Whiting.

Present.

Paul Masano.

Present.

Vice Chair Chick Tai.

Present.

And Chair Chowdry is absent.

There are 11 members present.

Thank you, Clerk.

And let the record reflect that we have a quorum.

Before we begin the meeting today, 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 for the broadcast.

Colleagues, our agenda for this meeting is before us, and I will briefly explain its order.

First, we will begin with the reports of our standing committees, then move to our consent agenda, then our discussion agenda, and lastly, our uh receive and file item.

Are there any questions about that order or amendments that council members would like to make to today's agenda?

Um please make sure to use speaker management while while I wait to see if there are any amendments.

I have one amendment to this agenda to walk on a uh related uh that's a walk-on related to a request by staff for a grant grant application in uh the neighborhood safety department.

You should have copies of the request for council action.

That's RCA number 2026-00595.

And staff are also available to answer any questions.

I'm gonna move to add this to part of our consent agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

Um, I'm not seeing any other amendments, so may I have a motion to adopt the agenda as I've amended.

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.

Now we will begin with our standing committee reports and start with the enterprise and labor relations committee.

Uh chaired by council member Paul Masano.

Thank you, madam chair.

The ELR committee has 12 items to bring forward this Thursday.

Item number one is an ethics education ordinance.

Item number two, our collective bargaining agreements with the Minneapolis Professional Employees Association.

Item number three is a bid for public service building elevator repairs and maintenance.

Item number four is a bid for traffic maintenance facilities reef roofing project.

Item number five is a contract with Barry Dunn McNeil and Parker for ERP program management services.

Item number six is a contract with HCM architects for architectural and engineering design services.

That's for our water distribution facility.

Item number seven is a legal settlement, the compensation claim of Troy Bjornstead.

Item number eight is the workers' compensation claim of Christina Schmidt.

Item number nine is the workers' compensation claim of Stefan Swanson.

Item number 10 is the workers' compensation claim of Michael Tracy.

Item 11 is a legal settlement of Corto Glefor Kapanaku versus the city of Minneapolis, and item number 12 is a gift acceptance from the public rights project and safer communities initiative for members of our city attorney's office to attend a conference that happens to be here in Minneapolis.

I'll be happy to stand for questions.

Thank you.

Colleagues, are there any questions related to the enterprise and labor relations committee agenda?

Seeing none, we'll now move to our business housing and zoning committee, which will be presented by Chair Osman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The BIS committee will be bringing 13 items on Thursday council meeting.

Item one, approves the liquor license for cafe harmony.

Item two approves an expansion.

Premises of Indeed Brewing Company.

Item three, approves an interim views permit for 22 to Playsdale Avenue.

Item four approves 2026 HUD Action Plan.

Item 5 approves five liquor license.

Item six approves 10 liquor license renewals.

Item seven approves gambling.

Seven gambling license.

I'm sorry, gambling license.

One gambling license.

Item eight approves is renaming changing Caesar Shaves Avenue to Fourth Avenue North.

Item nine authorizes a contract for public art.

Item 10 approves the budget on operation for the McVail Center for Music.

Item 11 authorizes a contract for tenant three's horses.

Item 12 is a gift acceptance from CB watershed organization.

And lastly, item 13 approves rezoning for 1914 Washington Avenue.

With that, I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions related to the Business Housing and Zoning Committee report?

I will recognize Councilmember Warren.

Thank you, Chair.

I am just recruiting myself from item number nine on the business housing and zoning committee.

Wonderful.

On Thursday, Councilmember Warren will be recusing herself from item number nine on this report.

I'm not seeing any further discussion, so we will move to our next committee report, which is the Climate and Infrastructure Committee.

That will be presented by its chair, Chair Wandsley.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chuck Thaya.

Actually, as the Councilmember Stevenson and my vice chair give the report since he presided over that meeting.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The CNI committee has 17 items to bring forward.

One, approving the RBC Gateway Food Truck Block Event Permit.

Two, approving the downtown Wednesday's block event permit.

Three, approving the annual saloon pride block party event permit.

Four, approving the taste of Minnesota block event permit.

Five, approving the Minnesota UFC Soccer Celebration Commercial Block Event Permit.

Six authorizing a joint powers agreement with Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board for the Lake Harriet Parkway and William Barry Parkway Reconstruction.

Authorizing a cooperative agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the Nicolette Avenue Bridge Replacement over I-94 Project.

Eight, accepting the low bid for Oliver Avenue South Storm Sewer Improvements Project.

Nine, accepting the sole bid for heavy truck and equipment body work.

10, authorizing a contract with JJ Keller and Associates Incorporated for the CDL training program for city employees.

11, authorizing a contract amendment with Minger Construction Companies Incorporated for the Combined Sewer Overflows Improvement Project.

12 authorizing a contract amendment with WSB LLC for 35th Avenue North Flood Mitigation Project.

13 Authorizing a Grant Application for Federal Railroad Administration for Connecting Camden Railroad Grade Separation Project and the Commitment of Local Funds for the Application.

14 approving Paul Wu for appointments to the Lindell Lake Special Service District Advisory Board.

That has an early signature request from the mayor.

Approving Jason Cramber for appointment to the Uptown Special Service District Advisory Board.

That also has an early early signature requested by the mayor.

16 resolutions related to the 2026 led service line replacement project orders.

17 passage of resolution adopting the stormwater management program and 2025 annual report and the authorizing public and authorizing public works to submit the annual report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

I'll stand for questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions related to the Climate and Infrastructure Committee report?

I am not seeing any.

Seeing none, we will now move to the rest of our agenda.

There are five items on our consent agenda today.

Without objection, I will move item number two to our discussion agenda, and we'll begin with uh item number two when we get to our disc uh discussion agenda.

Um our consent agenda, item number one is approving four seats to the audit committee.

Item number three is a gift acceptance for from the Center for American Progress for the Mayor.

Item number four is a gift acceptance from the Jewish Democratic Council of America, also for the mayor.

Um, and item number five is a uh grant application to the Office of Juvenile justice and Delinquency prevention for youth gang prevention and intervention.

Uh with I will uh I will move approval of the consent agenda.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Seeing no, is there any discussion?

Seeing none, I will ask all those in favor to please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it, and that motion carries.

Now we will be uh turning to our discussion agenda.

I um we we will begin with item number one on our discussion agenda, which is uh supporting Allison's law, which was our uh which was on our consent agenda.

Councilmember Chavez, would you like to begin discussion on this item?

Uh yes, and then Chair Chart, can you clarify?

Sorry, me and Councilmember Warren were just discussing the item that was added as a walk on.

Did we add that to consent, correct?

Yes.

It's item number five on the consent agenda.

You won't see it on the printed agenda because it's a walk-on.

Perfect.

Okay.

Thanks, uh, Chair Charktai.

Uh colleagues, I am asking for your support on this resolution, calling on the state legislature to pass Allison's law.

I will note that while the legislature recently adjourned, this issue is still relevant and we still need some help from the state legislature.

I hope that this uh resolution and this uh legislation at the state capitol becomes a priority for the next legislative session.

Uh, a little background, this legislation would require law enforcement agencies, coroners, and medical examiners to take certain actions, and that's classified as suicide, overdose, or accident when red flags are present for indicators of concealed domestic violence homicide.

And by taking this step, we are asking the state legislature to prevent what happened to Alice and Lucher from happening to others statewide.

I also want to be very clear that while we are asking the state legislature to take action, we still have a lot more to do here in the city of Minneapolis.

And this resolution itself does not absolve the city from the responsibility of taking domestic violence seriously, as we should be investing in solutions meant to address domestic violence, and we need to completely overhaul the way we investigate domestic violence.

At the public health, safety and equity committee last week, we moved forward on a legislative directive requesting quarterly updates on the after-action reviews relating to Allison Lucier and Davis Maturi.

The legislative directive includes a comprehensive review and progress report on the relevant recommendations and lessons learned from those two cases.

If approved on Thursday, the public health safety and equity committee will be tracking the necessary changes identified in the audit report, and we will be able to hold the mayor's administration accountable for those changes that are recommended in the auditor's report.

That is the role the public health safety and equity committee will be taking on too often in this body.

We hear reports and studies about what went wrong and what needs to be fixed, and then nothing happens.

The cases of Allison Lucher and Davis and Mattori, along with Mariah Samuels and countless others are too important to be forgotten, and they require follow-up and accountability.

One of the most important functions of this body of the city council is to provide accountability and oversight in these cases and many others who we who we don't even know about.

And the count, the countless actions that we're gonna be taking is a part of that.

In addition to the actions we're taking as a city, it is critical that the state legislature passes Allison's law to ensure that justice will be served on behalf of victims of domestic violence, and colleagues.

Councilmember Chavez has requested a roll call vote on this item.

Any further discussion, I will recognize Councilmember Wansley.

Thank you, Vice Chair Czech Tai.

Um also want to say thank you to your leadership, Councilmember Chavez, for bringing this resolution forward and supporting the family of Allison Lucier as they continue the fight for justice for their loved one, um, who should still be with us today.

And I'm also proud to be a co-author on this resolution and very supportive of this bill.

And I absolutely want to see the state help us put in stricter guardrails.

Because despite the endless promises of our police department, we are not doing better for uh victims of domestic violence.

And we received a pretty clear um audit report that outlined those many shortcomings.

And I want to name in particular that while those shortcomings are representative of countless of victims that we don't know their name.

We know they're particularly particularly true for those who are indigenous and who are black.

So we still see the disproportionate impacts of our ongoing failures within our police department to deliver safety for all.

And this is one area where we could absolutely use continue support from the state, and really making sure that we're holding our police department and agencies all across the state to do better by victims of domestic violence, so that what happened to Alison Lucier and her family doesn't have to happen to another family or loved one.

And we could be on the upstream of things as opposed to responding to the downstream after the life of someone has been already taken.

And this resolution, I will hope not just reaffirm my commitment, and I know that of Councilmember Chavez and so many of us who have been doing our best to push what's possible in our positions of making sure accountability can be had for Allison Lucier, Mariah Samuels, Davis Mattori, and so many other countless victims.

Um I'm hoping that this resolution reaffirms the collective commitment of this entire body to take the concrete actions we can to ensure that all domestic violence victims, especially um indigenous women, black women receive the support and services and care that they deserve.

So again, I just want to say thank you, Councilmember Chavez, and thank you to the family of Alison Lucier, and so many other victims for joining us today and keeping our feet to the fire to do better by our residents.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize Councilmember Stevenson.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Chavez, for bringing this forward and to the family for continuing to fight for your loved one.

We know in Minneapolis that uh victims of domestic violence or survivors of domestic violence repeatedly failed or failed to be protected by MPD.

Many reports have borne this out.

The consent decree calls out specifically the ways that MPD has failed the native community.

Um this resolution and if this law passed at the state legislature would move us in a better direction.

Um I strongly support this resolution, um, and I would ask to be added as a co-author if that's all right.

Of course, if the clerks can help.

Clerks have that noted.

Um I'm not seeing any further discussion, so I will move approval of this item and ask for a second.

Second, um, clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Wandsley.

Aye.

Rainville, aye.

Vita.

Aye.

Warren.

Aye, Osman.

Aye.

Schaefer.

Aye.

Stevenson.

Aye.

Chavez, aye.

Whiting.

Aye.

Palmasano.

Aye.

And Vice Chair Chuckte.

Aye.

There are 11 ayes.

That motion carries.

Uh next, we will move to um the community safety training and wellness center financing and acquisition item.

Um, I will remind my colleagues that we discussed this item last on uh March 24th and 26th and referred it back to staff.

Um staff are ready to come back to us.

Um I will invite Director Barbara O'Brien from the property services department to come up and present some more details on this item.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chug Tai, and Council Members.

My name is Barbara O'Brien, and I have the privilege of serving as the Director of Property Services for the City of Minneapolis.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge members of the property services team that are here with me today.

Matt Hannon, Property Services Real Estate Manager, and Ray Dean, Senior Project Manager.

I'm also joined by my colleague Liam O'Brien from the city's budget office.

The request for council action that has been submitted for your consideration today concerns the financing and acquisition of the proposed site for the concept of a community safety training and wellness center.

This request was initially presented to the committee on March 24th of this year and subsequently referred back to staff for further refinement and research.

This presentation aims to address the following three key areas: the project concept background and intent, site location and acquisition details, and the proposed financing for the site acquisition.

In 2018, the need for a modernized and flexible training facility was first identified within the Capital Improvement Program.

The facility was initially conceptualized to primarily support the Minneapolis Police Department.

However, in 2021, with the establishment of the Office of Community Safety, the core vision for this project was revised to encompass a multidepartmental training facility intended for all emergency response departments.

Since that time, extensive effort has been made to identify possibilities for locating a facility of this type and nature.

In the fall of 2025, a site was identified.

Negotiations took place, and the city utilized a third party to perform an opinion of values prior to making an offer on this property and subsequently entering into a letter of intent in late September.

Since that time, the owner worked to meet the city's request to resolve a rail spur on the property, which has been complete.

Since this acquisition was last discussed in this committee, the owners have communicated a deadline for transitioning from the letter of intent to the purchase agreement.

If we cannot advance that transition in May, the letter of intent will become null and void, and we will no longer have the opportunity to purchase this site for city development.

The site is located at 146 60th Street West.

It's in Ward Eleven.

It is part of the Wyndham neighborhood.

The site is made up of five parcels totaling 4.77 acres.

While mostly open and hardscaped or paved, there is one structure on the southeast corner of the property.

The existing building would be demolished as part of the site redevelopment.

The purchase price for this site is $6 million and with an estimated closing cost of 100,000.

There are two other sites currently on the market that are comparable in size and zoning.

One is also in Ward 11, is also listed at 4.77 acres and has an asking price of 9.9 million dollars.

The other is in northeast Minneapolis at just over five acres and has a listing listed asking price of 10.5 million.

Should we receive approval to advance with the purchase agreement?

The following steps could be expected.

The signing of the purchase agreement and initial deposit will initiate a due diligence period.

This is a 90-day span that allows for inspections, environmental assessments, and further site surveying.

Legal review, title work, and finalization of contract documents will lead to a final closing.

Funding the remaining balance, title transfer, and finally the possession of the site anticipated to take place in September of this year.

The project concept intent is to develop the city's first community safety training and wellness center.

The core vision for this center is to serve as a vital resource for all departments dedicated to ensuring community safety.

These departments include 911, the Minneapolis Fire Department, the Minneapolis Police Department, Behavioral Crisis Response, Emergency Management, and Neighborhood Safety.

It is envisioned that the key features will include flexible adult learning spaces, modern training spaces, cross collaborative spaces that do not exist today, and dedicated spaces for wellness and resilience.

Currently, training for these various departments occur in multiple locations that are disconnected from one another, several that are leased spaces.

The SOC or Special Operations Center is currently solely serving the Minneapolis Police Department.

It is located in a facility that started its life as an elementary school in 1962 and is located within a residential neighborhood.

For many years, the city has leased this space and has realized rising leased costs as well as operational costs.

One operational cost of note is the energy consumption costs of this facility, which is one of the most expensive facilities in our portfolio to heat and cool due to its aged structural offerings and our inability to modify mechanical supplies and infrastructure.

The lease fees will increase year over year through the remainder of the lease that is set to expire in 2029.

Should we not have a strategy in place, we can anticipate additional price increases with little changes that affect overall yearly costs at this location.

This slide demonstrates a high-level overview of the property services process of capital project development.

As referenced earlier in the presentation, the initial step is the identification of the project concept.

This is when a project of the project objectives and feasibility are defined as well as the establishment of the core vision for the project.

This initiates site searches where zoning, accessibility, and market availability are considered.

For this initiative, these steps have been complete.

We are now at the third step, site acquisition.

Please note the three stop symbols along the bottom of the diagram.

These denote the timing in the project process that you, City Council, have action points.

We are at the first of these three in the project process.

The approval to enter into purchase agreement.

Doing so will allow the programming of the facility to be site specific, leading to planning efficiencies.

The second stop symbol denotes the necessity for obtaining approval prior to awarding a contract for design and engineering services.

For projects of this nature, a duration of 15 to 18 months can be anticipated.

The third stop symbol identifies the time in the project process when the project design is complete, construction bids have been obtained, and at this point, a construction contract will be brought forward for your consideration and support.

To summarize this slide and this process, we are currently in the early stages of development of this project.

Property services in collaboration with a third party consultant and representatives from all emergency response departments have begun the formal programming phase.

It is important to note that the project program is not the design itself.

Rather, it consists of the information and data needed to initiate the design process.

Programming serves as a roadmap that will ultimately become a facility.

This phase is one of the most critical parts of the entire process, and tailoring the program to a specific site is the most efficient method of planning.

In addition to more accurate planning, other anticipated outcomes of this site acquisition include the ability for the city to capitalize on site control, to forge partnerships and seek financial support that advance the project, which would reduce the overall city dollars needed for this facility.

This acquisition would aid in the transition of reduced reliance on long-term leases that do not build equity and are less financially stable.

Furthermore, because this site is primarily open, the city can use this property for various needs while programming, design work, and critical decision making are in progress.

Three funding sources are identified through reallocation of bond proceeds and bond authorizations.

These financial shifts do not have an impact on the timelines for the animal care and control project or the North Hiawatha expansion.

With that, I'd like to thank you for your attention this afternoon.

I'm happy to stand for questions related to the site acquisition.

Thank you for that presentation, Director O'Brien.

Colleagues, are there any questions or comments related to this presentation?

I will first recognize council member whiting.

Thank you, Chair Chog Chai, and thank you, Director O'Brien.

Uh, just have a kind of few notes uh first, and then we'll ask a few questions of yourself as well.

Um, colleagues, uh I want to give you a heads up today.

Uh, and I will be rocking on a resolution on Thursday that I hope will alleviate some of my colleagues' concerns about this project.

Um there seems to be concerns that voting yes here uh on this land acts position today means we are writing a blank check uh for this project uh without kind of design uh parameters put around it.

And so listening to those concerns, both from my colleagues uh and members of community and constituents in my ward.

Uh I believe that you know we should put additional safeguards around uh this process.

Uh, and that it helped can kind of ensure that this has some additional transparency and accountability uh built in.

Uh with that, I know that many of us have our own reservations about advancing this land purchase without knowing uh the details of programming that will take place here.

Um, our resolution would require that before we issue an RFP for design services that this council uh must explicitly vote to approve a proof of proof of concept and facility programming.

Um this resolution is more or less likely to include uh kind of a mandate of a creation of a working group, uh which could include members of council, um uh members of city staff, um council staff, and then appointed community members as well.

And so this group would work directly with property services to identify space needs and ensure the center uh actually functions as a multi multi-jurisdictional center, including mental health spaces, uh space for BCR, and other of our police uh and law enforcement alternatives before any designers are hired.

And and now we kind of get to the to the fun part of the resolution.

Uh there would be a strict contingency that if that working group along with this council um cannot reach an agreement prior to uh 36 months of closing on the property, um, the property service would be directed to either present substitute alternative uses that do not touch um uh the proposed uh uh proposal of the site, or they would have to divest and and sell the property.

Uh and so I realize none of you have text in front of you today, right now.

Uh I will be getting that.

We are crafting that um with our offices and help from the clerk's office, uh, but wanted to give you a heads up before uh circulate that and have conversations uh with all of you.

I believe this is actually an ability to help craft um and have a hand in promoting what actual uh community safety and and our reform looks like moving forward.

Uh and excited to see how this works, both in conjunction with uh my uh colleagues here and with members of the community.

And so uh just wanted to note there, do have a few questions for you, Director uh O'Brien.

Um I forget this is committee, so we don't have time, but I will I won't take too long.

Um questions here.

So we've heard uh I've heard a lot of concerns.

Just had a uh a large uh letter uh that was received from my office.

Um a quick shout out to one of my constituents, Meredith Fox, who's uh did a lot of great effort um to move and kind of get this uh concerns out there.

Uh, and a lot of those concerns uh are particularly related to um the possible inclusion of a gun range.

And so if you can kind of talk a little bit about uh uh what that would actually look like in a facility like this, I am not sure.

I think a lot of us would like to have some understanding of is that I've heard from some constituents that is it an open range and open air range, is it underground?

Like what would that actually look like?

Vice Chair Chagtai, um council member whiting.

I will do my best.

Um I will start by just reminding that this would be something that would completely be flushed out in design that would be specific to this bit building and this site.

However, uh it would not be an open air uh range.

The purpose of uh of a range um is for uh fluidity and uh to be um proficient uh and to be practiced.

It's definitely part of a training.

Um it's something that uh we envision what could even be subterraneal because we are building, we would be building from scratch.

This is something that could be uh definitely underground.

I can speak from uh just industry standard knowledge.

Uh that typically um ranges for firing are uh reinforced with very thick concrete walls, very thick steel on top of that.

Um and that also goes for the floor and the and the ceiling of those spaces.

So they are enclosed.

Um it's not something that you could hear, or uh there's uh no way for uh any of the things that are going on inside to penetrate outward.

Um so that's a generalization.

Did I answer your question, sir?

You did, yes, thank you.

One more question for you.

No, uh, and in particular, I've heard some concerns both in community and um from my colleagues as well, uh, as it relates to the cost of this building, um, both uh the the kind of uh proposed cost at 38 million, um, and those that may exceed that cost.

And so uh right, I've heard some numbers out there that the ultimate cost of this facility uh could possibly be on that $38 million estimate, uh right upwards of I think I've heard uh $80 million and higher than that.

Can you walk us through properties services approach both to kind of cost estimates broadly, and then particularly uh the cost uh processes and estimates that went into uh this this proposed $38 million facility?

I certainly can uh Vice Chair Chegtai and Councilmember Whiting, Council members.

Uh that's a great question.

So um I think I think the best way to describe that is to back up just a little bit.

When a project um enters into the capital program, it's not fully vague, right?

It's it's generally a concept.

And so when we start working with the concept, setting the vision, setting the parameters of the project.

Um we typically use a process in which we use industry standard uh price per square foot based on the general use that we know.

So in this case, we know that we would have to be considering educational spaces, some specialty spaces.

Um we would have to be considered considering um spaces like gymnasiums or or flexible physical training spaces.

Each of those have an industry standard cost per square foot, and we can make some predictions based on the number of people that we will be serving in this facility, how big it needs to be.

That's sort of how that's the same methodology that we use to understand how big the site needs to be.

It also takes into consideration things like parking, site improvements, those sorts of things that are really general, but they are all encompassing of the of the project, right?

And the $38 million that has been identified is also inclusive of site acquisition.

So what we're really saying is that the to build the building would be approximately $32 million.

Now I will tell you that as we move forward in the design process, as we um should we have the opportunity to move forward in the design process.

Um the program is really helpful.

That helps us get down to exact square footage.

Um moving into design, moving schematic and design development, um, those periods are always marked with cost estimating um updates at each of those mile markers, and so that also helps us.

Um so I can tell you that we have this as a very educated placeholder today.

Um I am not, I'm not sure where $80 million has come from.

I would stand here and say that's that is not the case.

Um I'm aware of facilities of this nature that are being built across the nation that do have price takes like that.

Um, but they also are many, many acres bigger, and they are more encompassing uh to include uh, you know, full fire stations and full um precinct activity, things like that, and emergency response facilities incorporated in campuses.

We are proposing a single site on a much smaller um acreage than those comparisons.

Yeah, thank you, Director.

That's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

We have several council members in queue.

So next I will recognize council member Stevenson, followed by Vice President Osman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank uh the neighbors who came out uh to watch this and advocates who came out and thank you for your tireless work on this.

We have a motion to move this item forward to Thursday's council meeting without recommendation, and we'll continue with discussion.

Councilmember Stevenson, did you have any further discussion?

Oh no, that's all.

Thank you.

Wonderful, thank you.

Next, I'll recognize Vice President Osman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to make a comment on this item.

Last time this came in front of the council, I believe I was the one who gave a lifeline and gave this, I voted for yes, because I wanted to give uh this project a chance.

I asked to have to come back with a stronger, clear plan.

And obviously that did not happen.

And the reason is today we are asking council to spend six million dollars to buy a land without a full plan of the project, and how will this uh $38 million project, as we mentioned, will be paid.

Uh my belief is that um the state has not taken any action at all.

There's no a big saving city of Minneapolis have to build this.

So uh in my opinion, and my calculation, that we should not buy a land first and figure out the plan later.

It's not really a good plan, it's not a responsible way to spend tax barriers.

Uh I still support the uh the idea of modern um shared training center, a facility that truly supports the well-being of our first responders.

It's a it's a wonderful thing to have a facility for uh our first responders, but we need a full clear plan before we spend taxpayers and end up being stuck with big pieces of empty land.

I made that very clear, and this is the reason I will be voting no, uh moving this project uh forward today.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next I'll recognize Councilmember Palmisano.

I guess a few people got out of queue.

Um I do want to point out that number one, and it's something I've said several times up here on this day is if we are talking about making this into a public safety training and wellness facility, we need to have site control before we go to the state legislature.

That is a requirement of the state legislature.

So there is an order here that's really important.

And the second piece um I think I'll really phrase as a question uh to Director O'Brien, which is um is it true that we purchase properties all the time for the vast number of needs that we have at the city?

And can you explain that?

Because one of the things that Director O'Brien spoke about was about being able to use this piece of land for any number of needs that would maybe not have a public safety training facility on it.

But isn't it worth it given the comparables that she outlined in her presentation to say yes, this would be important to have in our capacity for finance and property services for all of the needs in the city, maybe as a water yard someday, maybe as animal control someday, maybe for some other purpose or use.

That's what I heard most as new in this conversation.

And Director O'Brien, could you share a little bit about how your division makes land purchases?

Because I know we sell it all the time, we see that on agendas, but we also do make purchases.

Sure.

Thank you for the question.

Property services does buy property all the time, and it is um uh for specific projects.

Uh that's usually how it goes.

Um, and it is most efficient and effective to actually have site control prior to getting too far down the road, because um it is best to design to a specific site.

Every site is is different, uh whether it be the um access or uh you know maybe even the environmental situation.

Uh so we need to go in with our eyes wide wide open with the the site.

A recent example was the procurement that was done uh on uh North University for the water yard.

So we purchased the property, and then moved into programming, and we are now uh in the design phase.

That is the order that is best.

Um that is industry standard for the way that we perform our work.

Yeah, thank you.

And I I want to remind my colleagues um that were here last year or before, and it's new to our new colleagues that um when we were wrestling with what the next step was for the former third precinct building, right?

There was the there were different opportunities over time of what should be in there, should we sell it, how might we repurpose it?

And you would remember seeing slide presentations, which here are the next four needs that fit this space requirement at Lake and Mini Haha.

And I believe that to the extent that we as a body can decouple this from a public safety training position that some of us want to be further ahead on before we commit to that, that we could also agree that this could fit any number of suitable things.

It would clean up a brown field.

Um I think we can talk about this out loud because we have assigned purchase, you know, intent to purchase with a certain price.

It seems to be an especially good deal, and we do have needs as a city that are only going to get incredibly more expensive if we don't act on this, which is not some sort of super rush plan, but rather something this division, the people who are here today presenting it to us, have been working on for how long, Director O'Brien.

Have you been working on this property acquisition?

A year?

For over a year.

Vice Chair Chang Tai Councilmember Palmasano, this site, this specific site was brought to our attention in the late summer of 2025.

So just under a year on this particular site.

Um, but we have been doing site searches for a number of our projects for years.

Um, when you when we need um property that is over four acres is very difficult to find.

Thank you.

I just wanted to put that in front of us as an option here, and I I hope we can stay in dialogue on it and not just back and forth.

Um I think this is important, and I think this honors our city staff's time, resources they've already spent themselves, their own time and energy on this kind of a project.

I think that um I don't have much of if any of that fun industrial zoned property in my ward.

Um, it is unusual to find um and and we need it for so many of the things that city government does.

So thank you.

Thank you for being here to answer questions this afternoon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next I'll recognize Vice President Osman.

Yeah, thank you.

Oh, Madam Chair.

I came back to just follow up one comment here.

Uh, first of all, the staff, thank you for your work.

You do amazing work every time, doesn't matter what what project we're speaking about.

Um, yes, council member uh Pomson is right when she said that you know we have to have the control of the site before we go to the state.

It is true, it's a fact.

And but I have seen and I talked to state legislators who publicly actually came out against this project, and those legislators are not just, you know, they are Minneapolis delegation that came out against this project.

So that should be that should have some kind of weight on us.

Um there's no magic 38 million dollars that that will come anywhere.

Um, yes, I agree that.

You know, definitely continue to seek a proper way to get the money from the state or the feds, whoever, to support us this project, and on that.

And the argument of this uh having side control for projects for someday is not a good plan for taxpayers.

When that someday comes along, I'm happy to support a purchasing that depending on what that project is and how that will benefit for our residents.

But I don't think it's a really smart decision just to buy the land now and hope for a project for someday.

That's not what I think my residents will be happy about.

So thank you, Council or Member Chiptai.

Thank you.

Next I'll recognize Councilmember Vita, followed by Councilmember Schaefer.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, my commitment to this project has always been what the North Side has asked for.

Getting these services out of wards four and wards five.

The gun range is in the fifth precinct in a very residential neighborhood, and the training facility is in ward four.

I mean, it's literally in people's front and backyards.

And so my view of this process is a commitment to the north side that we're at least working towards that.

I don't think we're against having a training center on the north side.

We just don't want it like in the old school in someone's backyard.

We don't want the gun range on Plymouth Avenue.

We're, I don't know how many of my colleagues know this, but the North Side's um precinct or the school, they're different than anywhere else in the city, like everybody else's precinct are on these major streets on like Lake Street, and um, you know, the first precinct is now right off the freeway.

So everyone else's precincts are situated different.

Ours is actually a former community center, the way that people have been trying to reclaim back for decades, and so any and everything I can do as a Northside Council member to not only help people reclaim that community center back and to get those services out of those residential neighborhoods.

I'm gonna do that, and that's what I've asked my colleagues to do.

No, it's not a perfect situation where we have the money or we have we have it all figured out, but there is something about giving a community hope and and letting the community know that we're working.

When colleagues stepped up and said, you know, they didn't want to go back into the third precinct.

I certainly listened to that and understood and voted for another facility, like nearby for the third precinct.

And I and all I've been asking for for four years is support on a process on some sort of um just some listening, listening to what people are saying.

I'm not saying everybody wants this in North Minneapolis, but what I'm saying is the people who live on Bryant Avenue, the people who live on Morgan are saying there's a shooting range downstairs that has operated for many years, too.

So I'm gonna say we know how to design a shooting range uh for the police department because there's been one in the fourth precinct since it's been there, and that is where they keep the guns and keep the bullets to do the shooting.

Literally, a block away from a medical facility, a whole Lincoln school that Prince went to is right in the area, a park, multiple parks, North High School.

All of this is happening right now.

This facility that you all are asking us to support, is not in that same kind of area.

And again, I'm okay with you finding somewhere in North Minneapolis away from the community in this way, and like developing a process.

I'm also totally fine with we're gonna figure out how this is gonna happen after we acquire the land.

Staff knows for four years I've been saying, where can we do this at?

What is happening?

What what can what can I take back to the community to say the possibility is on the horizon?

And so now we have it.

People are watching, and we're saying, not right now.

We don't know.

We actually don't know if this is gonna happen on this site, but at least we can try, and at least we can go to the next step and say we have the land, now we can do it, is what this process means to us.

It's not about um we don't have the 40 million dollars or we don't have the plan.

I don't remember ever developing things like that.

Uh, as a city council member, as a parks commissioner.

I mean, we've done all this work to access the river.

You get the land, then you develop it, then you take community through this process that I've seen take.

I mean, the upper harbor terminal, God only knows that was 20 years of like work to come up with some of the parcels having something on it, but acquiring the land was first.

And so that's all I'm asking.

I'm asking for a chance to at least say we're working towards something, we're gonna get these services out of this community.

Um, we don't know when, certainly, but at least we're working towards something.

Thank you.

Next, I'll recognize Councilmember Schaefer, followed by Councilmember Wandsley.

Yes, uh I would just like to say a couple comments.

Yes, I agree that first we have to have the land, and then we get the plan, um, and we work in that order, and that's been consistent throughout our city work and parks work as councilmember vita has uh established.

Uh I guess the point I would like to raise is that for us as a city after enunciation in Crystal Ray, um, why it is controversial for us to invest in the mental health and training of our first responders.

Um, our city has put our first responders in situations that no other city has had to face.

And I believe that this is one thing that we can do to continue to invest in the very public safety of our city and by prioritizing this work.

Um, I also believe that this is an opportunity for us to really make a stand around fiscal responsibility as a body.

This is an opportunity that will be gone if we vote this down.

This is a fiscally responsible decision, whether we plan it out for first responders, whether we plan it out for another use.

If we don't arrive at a design that we all feel comfortable with, we are turning down a piece of land that is already proven that will be sold at a much higher price, most likely, um, with the comparison that's next door.

So, my view is that as council members in times of strict budgets, but yet caring for the long-range vision of improving our city and improving the services that we provide, we are missing an opportunity if we don't vote to buy this land at this point in time.

And for a price comparison with the additional six million for the North Commons pool that was allocated this past Sunday, we will be spending as a city just shy 49 million, almost 50 million dollars on the North Commons facility.

I hope that puts that this 38 million into perspective for my colleagues.

38 million to be able to train and have the health and wellness of our first responders prioritized.

That number may go up, but it's in my viewpoint that that is a very reasonable number to begin with.

And so those are my thoughts at this moment, but I hope that we don't miss this opportunity, um, because it is a chance to invest in the long-range health of our city, and uh, in whatever way we choose to use this land purchase.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize Councilmember Wandsley, followed by Councilmember Palmasono.

Thank you, Vice Chair Czech Tide.

Just so many thoughts.

I most immediately, I can't believe we would even frame this as an opportunity when it's very clear this will become a liability.

Um, I am just trying to go down the various points here.

First, the shifting goalposts around this project is also just very disturbing.

It's been very clear that the Fry Administration has wanted to acquire a parcel or some land for the explicit development of a public safety facility for the police.

That has been consistent.

And the idea that all of a sudden we could buy a piece of land without a plan, which also I don't know where other people have been.

I have never heard an actual functioning government body say, let's acquire land without a plan first.

Most fiscal conservatives or anyone would say that is fiscally reckless to say let's buy land first before having a thoughtful development process and all those things.

And how I know is kind of ridiculous because we've asked community partners to do exactly above and beyond that.

When we were debating the East Phillips or Roof Depot project and actually trying to give that over to a community that has largely experienced concentrated pollution and a variety of racist impacts by living in that area, they went out and actually got state dollars that actually got approved this past legislative session.

They actually went out and got development financing for their project.

And we made them go through 10 years of loopholes and made them come forward with a 10-tier plan around what this project could look like.

And we still, or a majority of this body for several years still said, no, that's not enough.

So I know we have before have said to community partners and to business developers all across the city, you absolutely do need a plan if we're gonna provide any support.

So this is a complete ridiculous shift here.

And the idea that you, no, don't get the land before the plan.

Absolutely, plan before you buy some land.

I think anyone would know that.

A homeowner, anyone would recognize that is just ridiculousness.

But before that, also let's go to the next piece of the gun range.

And actually, there is some positive movement on this because I do think this is a shared agreement point.

No one wants to have a gun range in a predominantly black community in North Minneapolis.

And also don't think that gun range needs to then be shipped out of that community to another community, particularly in Wyndham, 40 feet away from a school.

And it doesn't need to be in that residential area.

So we actually have some positive tracking towards that because OCS is asking us to approve a RFP right now for in-service trainings and outdoor range facilities that would go into effect on June 1st of this year.

So our law enforcement can actually execute their gun range training.

So we are actually having an interim solution to meet the needs of this, and it's at a hundred thousand dollars per year, and that is something that we could make permanent so that several residential narrative uh neighborhoods would not have to bear the load of having gun shots go off in their communities by their first responders.

So let's move forward with that.

Um, also, I just this is just astounding.

Also, the piece around health and wellness of our first responders.

I think it's important to highlight again the substantial amount of money that this body has already poured into that function by itself.

That is also a requirement of the settlement uh uh agreement.

In response to our facilities assessment that says we need to upgrade the police facilities.

We have poured nearly 100 million dollars into that alone and the renovations of our police precincts and subsequent facilities.

And as part of those renovations, they will have wellness spaces as part of it.

We also just last summer approved a contract that over $2 million for a new mental health vendor just for the police.

So we have ticked that box off by over a hundred million dollars, and that does not require us to go forward with another 40 million dollar building.

This is just makes no sense in the grand scheme of priority sets facing our city when we're already coming up against a 200 million dollar plus deficit because of the federal occupation.

And we know we could and need to be investing in things like affordable housing, where we could be working to reduce you the utility bills of our residents by investing in climate um resiliency, the ridiculousness that we would go forward and say, you know what, let's buy some land and not have a plan for it.

Not actually buy land with the plan to say let's build 200 units of 30% AMI housing.

Let's go buy some land and develop a municipal grocery store.

Let's go buy some land and develop a facility to help people who are experiencing substance use disorder since that's been a shared priority amongst this body of us wanting to actually have treatment responses to it.

But no, let's go buy some land with an unclear plan, but we actually do have a plan.

We want to build a COP fortress for our police officers.

That is the plan.

No matter how you want to shake it, how you want to reframe it, that is the plan.

And that is something that I am not supporting.

We are already expending hundreds of millions of dollars for one department, the police department.

It's time to be looking at what else we've neglected by constantly holding ourselves hostage financially to this department in a way that actually meets the needs of our residents.

And that is the opportunity in front of us that I would like to see us pursue instead.

Thank you.

Next we'll we'll continue with discussion to council member Palmasano and then Councilmember Chavez.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, first to say that when people talk about a school being 40 feet away from this site, that's not true.

The nearest school is Wyndham Community School, it's over half a mile away, it's an 11-minute walk.

Annunciation is over a mile away from this specific property.

This current site, as it stands right now, is a simple demolition of one or two buildings with like roofing problems.

It's a very simple structure.

My understanding is it used to hold buses in there and trucking stuff.

This kind of site demolition could be accomplished with very little investment, and it could allow us to lease it out or use the site for something in an interim if we choose to go this route and choose to use it for any of multiple projects that finance and property services has in mind for this site.

I'll mention again that it's zoned industrial, which opens up a lot of possibilities to how it could be used.

One of the changes in the 2040 plan and other comprehensive plans over time have really shrunk our city's amount of industrial space in our city.

And that there's a benefit to that.

We did that very intentionally.

It's about having a healthy city and a healthy community, but it does leave a bigger and bigger challenge when we're trying to house certain functions within our city.

Um our lease with Minneapolis Public Schools for the Hamilton School expires in a few years and it increases at exponential rates at compounded interest rates.

It becomes very much not a good deal, up to 20% increases annually.

Why not spend the next three years working with each other and with community to vision how this site could be used as a public safety training and wellness site?

I want to leave that open to discussion.

I could make a motion here to substitute to move this forward with recommendation today.

And we all know up here that it would be successful, but I don't want to fight like that.

I don't want to fight like that.

I do think that in all of my work since 2017 on something that would be a training facility.

And at the time, this shows how needs grow and change over time.

At that time it was just a police facility.

Now it could be something so much more than that.

If we want this city council to have a seat at the table, to change how that training is done, to to do a work group, to agree to programmatic components or not, then I would really suggest that we move forward and do this as a police training and wellness facility.

That is something that we could achieve as a body here this term.

But if we don't, we have multiple other ways to use this site.

I do know that one of the objections to this from people who feel differently than I do on this would be saying, I don't have the luxury of making a business-appropriate decision here.

I don't have the luxury of being able to have us purchase something because it's a good deal and we could do other things because then whatever.

They want to fight against this as a training facility.

To me, that feels like really giving up the shot that we're offered here.

Really giving up the opportunity to make this something more and to put our stamp on it together.

So I will leave this as moving forward without recommendation and hope that we can stay in the conversation with others on it.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize Council Member Chavez, followed by Council Member Whiting.

Thank you, Chair Chug Tai.

Just because it was mentioned comments about what this body basically does or doesn't do about police wellness.

I just want to remind this body and the public that on March 5th, the Minneapolis City Council adopted the appointed position in the police department, director of police, well health, and wellness.

So I just want to make sure that there's a variety of different actions that the city council has done when it comes to the mental health and well-being of our police officers and don't want the public to take some of the comments on this day and misconstrue the work that we have done when it comes to wellness because part of the reason why I think it's really important that we continue to invest in the wellness and health of our officers is because the last thing we want is an officer to be out on the job and end up murdering someone because they were working too much or their wellness wasn't being taken care of.

So at least I want to acknowledge that this body has in multiple occasions invested in the wellness and mental health for police officers.

And I don't, well, I won't be supporting this today.

Um, I think that when we sign up uh and vote for this, it's gonna be held over our heads and say, well, now you all voted for this, so you have to invest 38 million dollars if the state legislature doesn't fund this project.

That is my concern with this vote.

However, I do take very seriously the concerns of some of my colleagues talking about the impact of this being in North Minneapolis.

So I do think that there are ways to address those solutions.

I just don't think this particular project and investing in this particular uh building that would then, in my opinion, feel like it would cost 30 million dollars for the city because I don't think the state legislature would prioritize this, then mean that we would have to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize this.

But I still think that there is a way that this body can come together to address the issue with North Side in terms of not wanting it in their neighborhood.

And I think that is a long-term plan that we should figure out as soon as possible and what that could look like.

So I just want to at least make some of those comments.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize council member Whiting, followed by Councilmember Vita.

Yes, thank you, uh Vice Chair Chuck Tai.

Uh and to my council colleague, Chavez's known, I think he's exactly right.

Uh, he notes that this body has been supportive of of uh mental health investments for our first responders, and I think that's exactly right, right?

Over the last term, um, we have seen uh multiple investments um into the mental health uh uh aspects of our first responders.

And I think it was uh I was one of the when I was in the city attorney's office, one of the folks that wrote the contract with uh L Mental Health, and I believe that was a unanimous vote um across this body and appreciate that investment.

Um, and to council member uh Wansley's point, I think, you know, it I wish we have ticked all of these boxes, uh, right?

I wish these are the boxes that have been ticked, uh, right.

You know, Ellie Mental Health was a recommendation uh under the consortium, which is one of the assessments um that is required by the settlement agreement.

Another recommendation within that assessment uh is that they uh have to build out uh facilities and centers um for uh the mental health and and betterment of that.

And so I think there's versions of this, and what we are seeing at Council Member Wandsley correctly notes that we have spent uh I believe over 80 million, I think upwards of of hundreds of millions on uh precinct investments as of late.

Uh, uh is what we see across consent decree cities.

Uh, is what you see.

Uh you see a massive investment in cities that are under consent decrees into their first responders' facilities, into their training, into their mental health, because we have seen over generations what the lack of mental health of training of facilities of alternatives to policing results in both particularly in black and brown communities, but across the city.

And so uh right, it is expensive, it is going to be extremely expensive for the next eight to twelve years, because that's the average lifespan of settlement agreement and consent decrees.

Uh, and I think that's if we are going to do it right, which I want to do right to Councilmember Wansley Point, I wish we have checked off all of these boxes.

I wish we were able to go up to a leaf and say, hey, look, we did everything.

We are we are compliant with the settlement agreement, we are compliant with our consent decree requirements, we are compliant with the safe and thriving community report, but we are not.

All right, this is a portion that Alifa has put on to the city of Minneapolis that says if you do this facility, if you create this facility, you are in compliance.

If you do not, you are not in compliance.

Uh right.

I think there is a version of this that I am hearing with my colleagues that hey, maybe we can revision and and and kind of come back to the table what that can look like.

That is where I think the resolution that I hope to bring on Thursday is able to do that, right?

Because I hear the concerns of my colleagues, I hear the concerns of community, I hear the concerns of, hey, what is this actually going to be?

And let's do that.

Let's be a body that actually moves forward and talks about what this is going to look like.

Let's be a body that creates what this is and has a hand in controlling what this will be.

Right.

We just had a uh a presentation on here, right?

Where it has these three little stop signs of where in the process we have that there is no process in here that includes community, right?

Except for one that we have the ability to do today that we actively build in, and I think this is something that maybe we can ask the question of our director, but I think this is something that property services would be okay with.

Um, right, and if we have that ability, let's do it, right?

Let's actively work together as a body.

Let's show this city that we can work together and come to come to some level of compromise on this body.

And and I know there's shared visions in this, and and and I know I'm getting a little long-winded here, but there is uh a shared version of what this can look like, and I think we have that ability to do it, and let's step up and meet it.

Uh, thank you.

Thank you.

Next, I'll recognize Councilmember Vita, followed by Councilmember Warren.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, Director O'Brien, I can't remember uh the specifics, but so we we purchased the second building for the third precinct, which is the one that is being we just voted on some development of that.

Did we have did we have everything like flushed out when we purchased that building for the third precinct?

Uh through the vice chair, through the chair, uh council member Vita.

Um we made that purchase uh and then went into the design process.

Right.

So we hired that architectural firm.

Right.

Let me be let me be clear.

We um much like this project, there is a concept.

There is a there's an overarching plan.

There are uh not uh we we have to go through the design process.

And to your specific question and to the point, uh 2633 was purchased, and then we hired an AE firm uh to help us through the design process, and it was recently brought to council for the construction contract.

So, um, a couple of their questions.

Yes, it did.

So a couple years after we purchased the building, we because I remember it might have even just been earlier this year.

We approved the move for to move forward with the design and all those things for the building.

Council member uh Vita, um that is correct.

So uh we purchased that facility, and then um approximately four months later, we were we brought a design contract forward to um council.

The that building has been in design for a little over 15 months, and just recently the design was complete, and we brought a construction contract forward, which was approved, and construction has begun on that project.

Great, thank you.

And then the original third precinct building that we still own that is going to be the democracy center.

Um we did an evaluation of that space and an evaluation of what services the city could use in there and determine that it was gonna be the democracy center after we knew that we could have saved millions of dollars if we had just like cleaned that building up and used it versus like the move forward with the I mean there was a huge difference in the millions of dollars we spent to acquire a new building and then are gonna equip it to be the new precinct versus what we could have done with the old building, but the community said they didn't want to go there, right?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

And then the last thing is, do I mean you maybe can't speak to this because you know you're not the police department, I'll ask someone else, but uh firearms training is not just like a go do firearms training over there.

You gotta have a contract.

There's like days and days where you do firearms training.

There's different kinds of guns and facilities are set up differently for certain kinds of guns, and like, so do we have any idea of like how much a full-on firearms training would be for uh all of MPD's requirements?

Councilmember Vita, um there are parts of that question that I will have to decline answering because I am I'm not um in the operations uh police, and I will not be able to answer the qualifications that they have to meet annually.

That's just not my uh place to ask.

I will tell you though that um since March 24th, when this uh was sent back to staff for further research and uh reconsideration, uh we did take the opportunity to spend a lot of time uh talking with touring, asking questions of places that do provide firearms training, like the Hero Center, trying to understand the uh annual costs of of those um activities.

We recently received the annual report from the Hero Center for 2025.

Um some uh interesting points that answer your question are on average it costs three, two hundred dollars per officer or per individual per annum just for training space at that facility.

It doesn't include the trainer or or any of the things.

So if we were to do basic math, um if we were to utilize that's that center, which we know that they are at capacity and they can't take all of us, but let's just say hypothetically um at that rate with the number of officers that Minneapolis has, it would be over two million dollars a year.

So two million dollars a year just for the basic range training.

Because my understanding is that this is uh this contract that was brought up today is kind of like a specialty training.

It's not like it's like a certain kind of, I'm sorry, directly.

I've asked questions about this in committee, after committee actually, and it sounds like this isn't like something that could have been done at the fourth precinct.

This is outside of what happens, and I know like I talk a lot about the gun range, and that's primarily because people don't want it there, but there are other functions that this training facility could house, like the drive in range.

Right now, we have another contract with I don't even know how much that costs with the NOCA County or somewhere for the police to do the driving range training.

We have training contracts so that um they can do fire truck uh training.

We don't have a facility for the proper fire ladders and you know those sorts of things.

So where it's not just about like this one contract with the gun range that is a lot of money.

Um there are other parts of this that would be housed in this facility where if we combine the resources, I mean, I think overall it sounds like cost savings and you know alleviating trauma for community members is a big factor, uh, but but it certainly sounds like we need to be cost effective for how much this is gonna be, not only now but years to come when we're talking about having contracts with multiple um agencies that may or may not even have room for us to use their facility.

That's also an assumption, too, that you know the regular training for MPD could be used in these facilities also.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, I'll recognize council member Warren, followed by councilmember Stevenson.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Um, it is to my understanding, and and someone can correct me if I'm I'm wrong, that you know, the investment in doing this training facility was something that this council body voted unanimously on over a year or so ago.

I think this is in reference to the IGR platform.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I um Vice Chair Chag Tai and uh Councilmember Warren.

Um I'm not I can't speak to that.

I'm sorry.

I think that was an I I believe you're right.

I think that was a different.

Can you provide clarification, Vice Chair?

Uh I'm happy to um in just in December last year, the the city council adopted the IGR platform, which we go to the Capitol and and lobby uh for those priorities that are included in that, and uh this uh a public safety training and wellness facility was included in the IGR platform.

Okay, and so it was something that this body decided about in the IGR platform of December of last year to go and ask the state for money uh for this, yeah.

Okay, and so you asked the state for money for this uh last year in December, and they provided you with funding for that?

Nope, no?

Okay, so but it was something that was unanimously decided upon at that time.

At the recommendation of staff, and then we went and lobbied for it over the course of this legislative session, I believe, and and no.

She said no.

Oh no, I'm just I can't speak to that.

Yeah, that is that's what I think.

Yeah, and we did receive the money.

All right.

Well, so it seems like it was a decision that was made, and everybody was on board with it.

Now all of a sudden it's changed.

And I hear individuals on this body saying, yes, we care about the north side, and we want to we, you know, we understand that it's in the north side, but the north side always has to hurry up and wait.

And we have the highest level of area concentrated poverty in the city of Minneapolis, the highest level.

But we always gotta hurry up and wait, take a back seat, let us think about it.

Let us go over here, figure out something else or whatever else the case is, and we're the last ones to receive an investment or removal of things that are not serving our community in the capacity that it needs to be served.

So I understand that, yeah, it's land acquisition, six million dollars today, go ahead and spend that six million dollars today because you're gonna spend more money on it later, because inflation of land prices are gonna just go up.

So when it's time to purchase another parcel of land, whether it be two years or now or five years from now or whatever the case is, you're still gonna spend more money.

If you can get it at a discount now, purchase it while it's on special because we know no one's putting any other opportunities out here to make any great deals of money that everybody's so excited about spending.

So, I mean, if you have the opportunity to make the financial investment in the land now while you devise a plan, because you know it's gonna be a training facility, that you know, but you have to devise the plan of what that looks like and how that body of work is shaped, and it all makes sense to me.

It just, I mean, and everyone says, oh, they care so much about North Minneapolis.

Well, I can't damn tell.

I can't tell.

I can't tell.

Because when it's something that we are asking for as it pertains to North Minneapolis or removing things from North Minneapolis that do not serve our community and its capacity, everyone drags their feet and is very dismissive about the things that North Minneapolis needs.

And that's really tiresome and mentally exhausting.

So I can't see how people are so concerned.

But you want to come over there, you want to eat fried chicken, you want to kick it in the parks, you want to hang with the people, you think it's cool, it's cute, it's fun, whatever else the case is.

But when we're telling you what our needs are in the north side, no one pays attention to what the north side's needs are, and that's exhausting, and it's disrespectful.

Everything over South gets all the bells and whistles and this, that, and the other.

You got a whole new third precinct, burnt the last one down.

We could have used that same dang on building, and then the money that was used to build a whole new third precinct could have gone to go build this training facility, and we could have got this stuff out of North Minneapolis.

But instead, nobody's paying attention to that.

So I don't really think that it's people on this body that really truly care about the North Side, the way that they say that they care about the North Side.

So if you care about the North Side, then vote to go ahead and purchase this land so that we can reshape the North Side the way that the North Side needs to be reshaped and invest in the North Side the way the North Side needs to be invested in.

The end.

Next I'll recognize Councilmember Stevenson, followed by Councilmember Wandsley.

Thank you.

Um there was a comment that a new training facility is how we're gonna get the police accountability.

We need to train our officers uh differently in this new facility.

Um, and that's how we're gonna get better policing.

That's how we're gonna deal with a pattern in practice of racism.

Um, and I I just like to say that's not true.

Uh we won't have accountability in the police department until we actually hold officers accountable for their actions.

There was the recent harassment of a trans security guard.

Uh we're gonna be seeing uh we're gonna be seeing a lawsuit on that, I'm sure, very soon.

Uh, that's a behavior issue.

Nobody just harasses trans people because they haven't been trained properly on how to treat people.

Uh there was the murder of Amir Locke, and instead of the officer being uh disciplined, the officer was promoted to be the head of wellness in MPD.

Uh, then there was the underpolicing of Davis Maturi and protecting Davis Maturi, and yet no officers have been held accountable for the many repeated documented let's call them mistakes.

Uh no one held accountable for that.

Public safety won't improve, and a pattern and practice of racism will not be removed from the police department until officers are held accountable.

We can have the most beautiful facilities on the face of the planet.

But if we let officers do anything they want and don't hold them accountable for it, we will continue to get officers doing whatever they want.

And unfortunately, right now, that is harassing trans security guards, that is murdering black men while they have blankets covering them, that is not protecting black men from their racist neighbors.

Uh and the list goes on and on, not to mention Alison Lucia, who we were just talking about, and uh Mariah Samuels among others.

Can we please drop this framing that if we just had better facilities, or if we just had different training, that we would not see the gross, gross misbehavior by some officers.

What we need is we need accountability for officers.

And just as a note, I was looking into uh past complaints.

Somebody was showing me the dashboard of past complaints for the police department.

And I thought, oh, I should look up the officer uh who shot me.

Um he has one complaint, it's not from me.

I I realized later that I actually never submitted a complaint.

Uh, and that's because to quote my lawyer, the process is a joke.

Um, he had a complaint for getting a DUI in 2023.

Um, and it took over a year for him to get suspended for four days.

Four days unpaid vacation for getting a DUI going 90 miles an hour drunk on the freeway.

Um, this is what we're doing with officers right now.

We are not treating them to the level uh that we treat every other community member.

We have higher expectations of everyone else.

Uh and we're not going to get the changes in our department until we demand the changes in our department.

Um, and I'd I'd really really like to dispense with the idea that a new facility would suddenly get us officers who are behaving properly if we're not going to actually follow up and demand that officers behave properly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we've got five additional speakers in queue right now.

Um it's 3:09 p.m.

And uh we have captioners until 4 30.

That's not to say I'm asking anyone to get out of queue, it's just to note uh that we have one more discussion item after this.

Um I'll next recognize council member Wandsley, followed by Councilmember Schaefer.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chuk Tai.

Um just a couple just like corrective framings.

Well, first starting with this idea that the consent decree means that our city has to basically bankrupt ourselves in order to have police officers that do not abuse the human or civil liberties of our black brown and indigenous residents is just preposterous.

We do not have to allow ourselves to continuously be put in a negative net financial position by one department, and that's constantly what's being happened uh what's constantly happening, and the consent decree is used as the tool to say, oh, you want officers who don't uh abuse you or brillize you, then yeah, that means taxpayers, you're gonna have to pay the buck for that.

And that's simply not true.

This is what this body is here for.

We are here to help control the purse of the city.

And that doesn't mean we have to rubber stamp every single thing that says, oh, it's for the police.

We can actually go in and say, Oh, is this actually a need?

Is there another way in which we can repurpose existing city dollars and resources to meet other pressing needs like affordable housing and climate resiliency, and that's exactly what this body did in December, where we took the money away from this project and said we're gonna invest it in keeping our streets safer.

So, regardless if you're using a mobility device, if you're a family uh using a stroller, if you just need to get around our city safer, we're gonna make that happen.

And we invested the five million that were allocated towards this project, it redirected it, and that was a signal that this project did not have buy-in from the body, and that is the continued theme that we can approach Alifa with this idea that we can't go back to Alifa with a different plan, it's also not true.

We can absolutely come back with one that's actually inclusive of what the administration is already doing now.

And you know, a colleague mentioned that no one's listening to Northside.

Actually, I would say this is one of the opportunities where the Fry Administration is listening.

Um, because the contract that I referenced for the in-service training and outdoor range facility that is coming um before this body, I just want to read what the administration submitted in terms of what this will do.

This proposal requests that Minneapolis police enters into our contract with Forest Lake Sportsman's Club to provide law enforcement training facilities beginning June 1st of this year, 2026 through May 31st of 2029 for the amount of 300,000.

And this is to uh provide police storage training facilities, full use of the facility while close to the public during during police use.

So they will go there and be able to shoot, essentially.

And that starts this month.

Oh, sorry, next month in a couple weeks.

So this was the opportunity where the administration actually listened and said, let's find a way to get these services out of our residential areas.

And we're saying yes, keep going in that direction.

That is what the contract says that the administration is bringing forward because they heard those concerns.

And we could continue to build on that and say, yes, let's continue doing a decentralized model of providing for these training needs of police that does not warrant the formation of a 40 plus million dollar building.

That is simply what we're asking for, and we can work together, not to make this facility happen, but to make sure we don't go bankrupt in the pursuit of it.

I also want to frame again this idea that we can buy it and then plan for it, and that there's other examples where we've done that.

Particularly what was brought up was the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center.

That is going to be located in my ward.

In fact, we did not do that.

I had to go and look back, and I was like, oh, I remember before we did the acquisition vote of that parcel of 2633, Mini Haha, Mayor Fry sent a 47-page memo outlining what was supposed to go in that the programmatic intentions of that center that would have included our uh community safety responses and preventative responses, and that 47-page memo laid the basis along with us providing funding as a council to make sure that there's human traffic services that's going to be there.

There's going to be social uh work services, there's going to be um all these type of mental health responses that's going to be happening there.

But they shared a plan before asking us to buy that parcel.

So we have once again saw that this is a typical practice that we don't want to go in, making new purchases without thoughtful planning.

And if we do decide to do it, it shouldn't be for things that we're already doing.

We're already spending hundreds of millions of dollars on getting the police department in compliance with not abusing the human rights and the civil rights of their residents.

Now let's just focus this bill housing, actual affordable housing.

Let's actually talk about indoor playgrounds for our families and keep them here.

Fun stuff.

This is not it.

So I just wanted to offer some clarification on a couple things that were raised.

And again, why I won't be supporting this project.

I won't be supporting soft reframing of these projects, be it resolutions or whatever.

I'm ready to truly take the $40 million and redirect it into the places that we know will actually keep our community safe and raise their quality of life.

Thank you.

Next, I will recognize council member Schaefer.

Yes, I have a request.

Um, and I'm not sure, Director O'Brien, if this would be from your department or a request to another staff person, but we've talked a lot about the fiscal responsibility of this decision.

And I think what would be really helpful for us and my colleagues or myself in particular is what are the actual costs that we are spending on decentralized training at this point in time across the board, not just for police, but for fire for any kind of multi-siloed um practice exercises between departments off-site.

Um, I think that would give us a really clear picture of what are we spending currently for decentralized training and including the 1.2 million a year for the SOC that's going at a 20% increase every year from now through 2029.

And then also, um, so facilities and people training and any other category that would be you know in that training category, and then also um holding that to as best we can estimate what of those activities could be handled on a new site, in particular this four acres.

Maybe maybe some of those activities that are multi-uh departmental couldn't happen on that site because of size.

I don't know.

But if we could get kind of a fiscal comparison of like where we're at now and what we spend on training, you know, everywhere, and then what of those pieces would we potentially consider moving to this site and what would be that dollar amount?

Um, is that a feasible request?

This is an appropriate uh uh question for a follow-up response.

I don't think Director O'Brien will be able to answer that question.

That's what I meant.

I didn't know what to call it.

But let's, clerks, if we can note that for a follow-up memo.

Thank you.

And I just want to just say I, you know, I have to dig more into I'm just not understanding, you know, if we're ignoring a direction from a leaf, um, it sounds like we can go back and ask them something else.

Um, I will get clarity and do my own homework on that, but I don't want us to look back on this opportunity and then realize we could have checked that box and done it in a much more fiscally responsible way.

So that's my only final comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next, I'll I'll recognize council member Whiting, followed by Councilmember Chavez.

Um, if it's if it's actually okay with both of you, can I can I jump in with some questions?

Okay, thank you.

Um Director O'Brien, if you if you wouldn't mind coming back, um I see that uh bulk of the funding for the site acquisition, the six million for site acquisition is coming out of the animal care and control facility um capital budget, about uh just 3.8 million dollars is coming from the Minneapolis uh animal care and control facility or PSD 22.

Um it has been a part of the city's capital budget uh for several years now.

I believe dating back to 2022.

Um I was looking through um old click reports um went during our our council study session, and I remember there was a um uh section in in a supplemental report about the capital budget uh that referenced us that a portion of the the capital funding um would be used to undergo a study for the animal care and control facility.

It's been several years since this was first approved.

Can you tell me if uh a study has been completed on this facility?

Yes, uh uh Vice Chair Chuck Tai.

Thank you.

Uh great question.

I'm happy to talk about it.

And that is why this funding was identified for this resource in the first place.

A study was done, um, primarily because the building uh has had a lot of issues with being undersized.

When the and um mechanical and electrical, um just infrastructure in the building generally, and so we did an overall study uh with a third-party consultant that came in and looked at it at the building and how it functions and what um suggested modifications could be made so that we could better um function there with animal care and control.

When the building was first designed and built, it was intended for um domestic animals, dogs, cats.

Today we today we function uh with um a lot of uh exotic animals as well, and they are housed there, cared for there.

Um the surgical suite that was in that building needed to be um moved and changed to accommodate those needs today.

The surgical suite is kind of in a thoroughfare within the middle of the building.

Um the building was designed, it also did not have outdoor space for animals.

Uh we have since modified that and there is a makeshift outdoor space that is really small, but it exists.

Um it's on the boulevard.

And there are a significant amount of issues with um access for adoption, pet adoption, um, and people coming to that very same lobby or space for uh uh disputes about animals or other uh reasons.

Um there's very little space and division of those functions.

The study uh ultimately recommended that in order to meet the space needs of and of the care of animal and surgical suite, that the adoption portion would have to move out and have to be all, you know, we would have to find a new spot for that.

They also um identified a number of deficiencies in HVAC and electrical, which is indicative of the age of the building.

So upon further review and listening uh to the data, you know, paying attention to the details and the data coming into us, it made more sense for us to put a new project in the capital program for animal care and control that would keep those functions all together.

Um it would be able we would be able to provide outdoor space for animals, which is way more humane, um, and we would be able to keep uh animals from having to be transported daily for adoption purposes uh if we were to use uh another adoption location.

So the decision was made to um put a new project in the capital program, uh leaving us with available dollars that could be applied for this site purchase.

I hope I've answered your question.

Yeah, it would be really helpful.

You you absolutely have it'd be really helpful if um you can send that report to that was completed um to the body.

Um thank you.

And then can you uh tell me what the shifting gears?

Can you tell me what the assessed value of this site is that is proposed that is proposed to be acquired?

So the tax value um is 2.4 million dollars.

Um, oftentimes there is a difference between a tax, a tax value and a market value.

And so uh the we did hire a third party um uh to do a uh evaluation of value.

And uh we uh the offer that we originally made was right in line with that, and we received a counter-offer, and then we countered one more time.

We are not far off of the independent evaluators um estimate for this property.

Again, there's a difference between taxable value and market value.

So 2.4 million is the assessed value of this property, yeah.

Am I recalling that number correctly?

Or 2.3.

Something like that.

I have to look at it.

Um just over two million dollars.

Uh, something that we have heard to be true by the city assessor's office, um, and then anecdotally, in in the in the ecosystem around um the sale of commercial industrial properties um in Minneapolis over the last several years uh since we have come out of COVID, is that um that commercial and industrial uh properties are being uh sold at significantly lower than their assessed value, that that's actually a that's created a significant problem um around how we budget it's created significant problems around um the the tax burden and how it impacts residential properties.

Um it just strikes me that um this is a commercial or industrial property, but it we are we're we're purchasing it for far above about three times greater than its assessed value when we uh are seeing in the ecosystem that commercial and industrial properties are selling for far below their assessed value.

Can you help me understand?

Uh I I actually I don't know that it's helpful to get into the discrepancy here, but I'm just noting that that's something that stands out to me.

Um can you I'll just shift gears to my last question then.

Um something uh that has struck me is um the the cost that comes with the uh maintenance of of parcels of land that the city owns.

Um I remember I think it was a couple years ago that uh the administration told us um that it was costing somewhere in the ballpark of $250,000 every single month to just have uh just to maintain the Roof Depot site.

Are we accounting for uh the maintenance of site uh security uh additional security considerations during construction in this in this um $38 million budget?

And how much of that is is this cost?

So, Chair uh Vice Chair Chang Tai.

Um, of course, there would be what we call holding costs until the building goes into construction, and then the dichotomy kind of changes.

So while we um we while we would have the property during design and pre-construction activities, um we would obviously have to um take into consideration what those holding costs would be, and I think it would be the uh primarily the uh bond services uh for the dollars associated with the purchasing, and then um we would do our own uh internal security observations with our mobile unit.

Um this site is different, significantly different than the Roof Depot site because the Roof Depot site was is mostly consumed by a facility that has not been conditioned or does not have fire suppression or electricity or any of the things.

So it's we really needed to pay attention that nobody was there and getting hurt and securing it.

So this is an open site, so the security would be significantly different, not void, but different.

And have we accounted for um costs?

Uh this I mean certainly it wouldn't exist within a capital budget, but um, you know, all assets that we own, we then pay to maintain them, everything from janitorial services to uh just basic staffing.

Um have we accounted for for costs like that that are going to be baked in for the life of the the building um while we own it?

Yeah, so that that is also part of, I mean, there are general assumptions that happen right away in the the general uh estimating as we move forward in the design uh finalization, those things are definitely fleshed out, and then staffing and well that's not a pleasant sound.

Um we'll wait for someone to tell us that something is wrong.

Why don't you continue with your presentation?

Okay.

The um uh I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry.

I am I am I'm sorry, let me just uh uh recollect where I was.

Um the um staffing is generally uh departmental provision.

Um buildings that come online that are owned and operated by the city of Minneapolis then fall into our rent model.

Um and they are operations are paid for that way.

Thank you.

Um I will recognize council member whiting and then we'll hopefully call the role on this item.

Perfect.

Thank you, uh Vice Chair Chuckta.

And I will be brief again on this, and I appreciate uh council member uh Stevenson noting uh uh right that that buildings don't create accountability, and I think I I completely agree um with council member Stevenson on that point, and I think you know we'd note uh what does bring about accountability is is all the things that I think are in the consent decree and the settlement agreement.

Uh and what that means is that I don't think we should be picking and choosing uh which parts of this agreement that we should be moving forward, right?

Uh right, we we do have there is notes from Alifa that they've approved this facility, just like they have told us that you need to continue to invest in the Office of Police Conduct Review to invest in internal affairs, to invest in policing alternatives and to invest in every single thing that the consent decree and settlement agreement says.

Uh I don't think I've heard anyone on this body say that buildings bring about accountability, but these things work in conjunction with each other.

Uh, and that if you look at every single consent decree city across this country, every single one of them are engaging in investments across the public safety ecosystem.

What that requires is again investments in all things public safety.

I don't want to be a city that begins to pick and choose what those reforms are.

If we are going to move forward with what experts has given us, that it is why we are paying a 1.5 million dollars.

It is why we are paying uh a massive amount of money for the city attorney's office for MPD, for all of these things related to engaging in police reform work.

If we are going to do that, I am trusting that work to move forward.

And so uh right, I I think the moment that we start cherry picking the things that we want to do within our settlement agreement and within the consent decree and in the safe and thriving community report is when we start to move outside of what actually moves our city and reform work forward.

I think we all have the same commitment up here that we want to see these reforms move forward and reforms of MPD so we don't engage in the same pattern of practice of unconstitutional policing that we have seen and two uh non-biased uh governmental agencies that told us we have to do.

Uh right.

I am listening to those agreements as I know many of uh my council colleagues are, and I think we be have to continue listening to those things that are in front of us.

And so uh I again I appreciate all the conversation that is happening up here.

I know that and we again share the same communal uh universal need to to improve uh public safety in this body, it's just figuring out how to get there and the best way to do it.

And so I appreciate you, Barbara and the rest Director O'Brien and the rest of the team uh for bringing this forward and hopefully we can come to some level of agreement on this body.

Thank you.

Councilmember Vita.

I'm sorry, I can't hold it in.

Um this outdoor range situation is really bothering me because it is an outdoor range.

Officers have to be cleared yearly to do outside range activities.

This is one component of a contract that has been going on for like 20 years.

It's not a new thing, it's not some sort of um compromise for the mayor or anyone to say let's change um how shooting happens in North Minneapolis.

This has been happening the entire time that police are doing their range activities at the facility in North Minneapolis.

This is specifically outdoor shooting range activities that are required by the state for officers to be able to carry a gun that does not stop them from needing an indoor facility.

Thank you.

Uh seeing no one else uh in queue, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on the motion to forward this without recommendation to Thursday's council meeting.

Crazy.

Councilmember Wandsley.

Rainville is absent.

Vita.

Aye.

Warren.

Osman.

Aye.

Schaefer.

Aye.

Stevenson.

Aye.

Chavez.

Aye.

Aye.

Palmasano.

Aye.

And Vice Chair Chick Tai.

Aye.

There are ten ayes.

That motion carries, and this item is forwarded uh without recommendation.

We will now take up our final item on this agenda.

This is a response to a legislative directive from myself and council member vita requesting information on the police department's 2025 spending.

For this item, I will welcome up Chief O'Hara and uh Deputy CFO DeSenza to present on this item.

I know the chief will be joining us as well.

He will, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chair, I'm just gonna pull up the presentation.

Take your time.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Members of the committee.

I'm Jane DeSenza, the deputy CFO.

And I'm here today.

I'll be joined by members of the Minneapolis Police Department to present a memo that we worked on in response to your legislative directive about LPD spending in the prior year.

So I don't have a slide deck for you, but I do have a memo that's being displayed.

And we're choosing to display the information in this way because you asked for a lot of financial detail.

And I want to make sure that everybody knows how to navigate the memo and find the information that they're looking for.

So I will I will walk through this memo and then I imagine you may have questions, some of which may be for me, and some of which may be for members of the police department leadership.

So the first question is a detailed description of budget overages in the department in the prior year by the categories that are listed in the LD.

So first, I'll just note that departments' budgets are adopted at the department and fund level.

So we might expect to see in the normal course of a year that overages in one area would be offset by underspending in another.

Departments work with finance annually to true up their budgets to reflect actual spending as much as possible.

But we know that we don't always get it 100% correct every year.

So on page two, you'll note that there is a table that has a lot of information.

So I just want to take a moment to walk through how to read through this.

So what we did here was pull general fund expenses for MPD so that you can compare against their 2025 budget.

So those are broken out by category, and then below the category, you have the more detailed account description.

So, for example, to read the salaries line, you can see that in the 2025 budget in the general fund.

Police were budgeted for just about 110 million dollars of salaries.

They spent a little over 99 million, and so there was underspending in that account code of 10.7 million.

So that's how you read that table.

Another item to note, as many of you know from PRAST current service level presentations, we do not inflate non-personnel budgets year to year.

So you might notice, for example, to take printing as one example.

The department had a budget of 70,000 for printing, but they spent 127,000 of printing.

Printing is not a budget that gets inflated just as a normal course of doing business.

So a department would either need to shift resources around to cover something like that, or they would need to come to you to ask for a budget increase.

Those motorcycles were purchased in 2025 from the O 1210 fund, which is their special revenue fund for forfeiture.

MPD submitted that request and worked through the fleet department to purchase those motorcycles at 126,000.

There is no planned ongoing maintenance or replacement of those vehicles in the fleet allocation model.

Next, the council asked about the total amount of money spent on department vehicles that were acquired between 2023 and 2025.

So we looked for information on new vehicles acquired in those years that were outside of standard squad cars replacements.

And so again, I have another kind of dense table that I'd like to take a moment to walk you through.

So this table shows by year and fund the vehicles that were added beyond the standard replacement costs.

So on the left column, you'll see the year.

So here at the very top, we have 2024, and then the fund number is below.

So fund 00100 is the general fund.

And then you can see what purchases, the dollar amount, and then a description were for each of those years.

Below the general fund, we have that 12-10 fund, the asset forfeiture fund.

The 1300 fund is a grant fund, and then you see the same funds repeated for 2025.

There were no expenses in 2023 that matched that search.

So the total there was 1.7 million dollars.

Next, the council asked about money spent on travel and lodging.

The answer is $310,000 were spent on travel in 2025.

In question five, the council asks about critical staffing overtime.

This is a policy that was introduced in the fall of 2022.

It was designed to address staffing needs for events and shifts when regular overtime was not sufficient to fill those positions.

So this was a double the regular rate of pay over time.

MPD can speak to this, but approval goes through the MPD chain of command.

Critical staffing overtime is no longer in use by the department.

There was a letter of agreement that was annual, which expired at the end of last year.

And that is the limbs link that is included in this memo.

Related to critical staffing over time in question six, the council asked about the fringe benefit costs related.

The answer is that MPD spent about $3.7 million on variable variable fringe.

So that's the fringe that's associated specifically with those critical staffing overtime hours.

Moving to question seven, this is one about response protocols.

I'm gonna I'm gonna read this aloud.

In order to determine whether the department failed to respond to a call for emergency assistance during critical staffing overtime, the department would pull data for calls in which there is no arrival time listed for a squad.

However, there are several confounding factors in the data in these cases.

For example, in a medical call, if a medic were to arrive prior to police, and they determine that the law enforcement was not necessary, they may cancel the police request.

The data for that call would indicate a failure to respond if not taken in context.

Similarly, a 911 caller may decide to cancel their request for assistance, or they may move their efforts to an online police report.

Calls can be appended to a concurrent duplicate call as well, which would result in that same failure to respond data outcome.

On the next page, you'll note the average and median call times for 2025.

And median and average priority one response times in the table below.

Question eight is about contractual spending by the department.

So the council requested the name of vendors, the services, and the dollar amounts of those contracts.

So again, I won't read these all line by line.

You'll see that there's more than one page of these, but just to note a few things.

Um this is an extract from the accounting system.

So we have the contractor name, the description, which is a short description, the total maximum contract amount, and recall that contracts can extend over multiple years.

And then we have the amount spent in 2025 listed.

In blue, you'll note contracts that MPD is spending on, but that are not necessarily held by MPD.

So one example of that would be NCR holds the translation services contract for the whole city.

When MPD uses translation services, though they're charged for that.

You'll also see in some of the contract descriptions MDHR pop up, so that's an indication that that's something related to settlement agreement implementation.

So there are several pages of this, and the total spend in 2025 was $11.3 million.

And then the final question is more about financial policies.

Um the council requested some information on how the department complies with financial policies.

Ensuring that those financial policies are maintained is a collaboration between finance and all departments.

In addition to those financial policies, the city is bound by accounting rules, and we are subject to annual state audits to ensure that we're following them.

The next question asks about account codes.

So account codes are specific types of expenses in the financial data.

So salaries would be one, health insurance, et cetera.

The controllers division in those monthly meetings with departments reviews those financials, and that is the point at which you would make sure that things are coded appropriately.

Funds have different uses.

So we all know that the general fund is unrestricted.

Its purpose is not limited to a specific type of spending, but other funds have rules.

So grant funds are adopted for specific reasons that are defined in the grant agreement.

The 1210 fund that we've discussed already today accounts for expenses and revenues related to federal and state administrative forfeiture, gambling, and some service contracts.

Those dollars are limited to law enforcement purposes and they can't supplant agency resources.

So MPD has its own finance and accounting team, which are our first line of review before the finance department reviews.

And I'll note MPD is without a finance director at the moment.

Special revenue funds like the 1210 fund are also discussed in quarterly reports.

So if you're interested in more on those, you can refer to the reports from the controller.

And the final question is about expense approval and who has authority to sign off on new expenses.

So MPD is like other departments in that they're subject to purchasing procedures, public purpose rules.

Those are all available to city staff within our intranet.

And when there are questions, we always hope that departments will reach out to finance for clarification.

Within MPD, staff would normally work with the MPD finance director for approval to spend, and that finance director would review for public purpose and coordinate with sworn leadership to understand what the operational impact may be.

Purchasing cards or P cards are limited to a small number of employees, and those are those purchases are reviewed routinely by the MPD accounting staff.

And that concludes my portion of this, and I'm happy to stand for any finance questions.

Colleagues, are there any questions?

I will recognize councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Director DeSenza and all the staff who helped come up with these answers.

I've been asking these questions for a very long time behind the scenes trying to get answers to them.

The budget chair and I have had many, many discussions about this.

I thought it was easier to get answers to questions, and because I could not get the answers, get questions answered at all.

We had to go this route with this legislative directive.

So it was never intended to put you or anyone on spot.

It's it's simply to get the answers to questions I'm being asked about MPD's budget.

So thank you so much for so graciously spending the time to do this and um get answers.

I do have some questions, and I think the questions are for the chief or someone from MPD.

Thank you, Director DeSenza.

Um, the first question is about the motorcycles.

So I know there's like four motorcycles, whatever.

There's a um dollar amount here associated with the motorcycles.

Just it, but there this says that you can't speak to any training costs.

So, like, did like just four people get picked that can ride a motorcycle already?

Sure, council member, um, yeah.

Well, currently I don't have a finance director today.

Um, so this information event to rely on OCS as well as uh the city's finance director to provide it.

Uh, I just I don't have it available.

I know there was training uh there's a specific police uh training course, uh I believe that's held in Wisconsin that the officers attended, but I just don't have the the data on that available.

Meaning like you don't know how many people went to the training and what it cost, Chair Councilmember.

There were it, I believe six people went to the training last year.

Um I don't have the the costs available.

But there's a record of it somewhere.

Okay, so I'm don't know why it's not here, and I'm I'm really hoping that this doesn't turn into a I don't have finance director, so we don't know the answer situation because this has been a long time coming, and I'm hoping we can get some answers to these questions over the next couple of weeks.

My expectation is certainly not, Chief, that everything has to be answered today, but that the questions get an answer, um, even without a finance director, because I'm I literally almost fell out of my chair when I sat with the budget director and found out that she couldn't just open up a computer and show me a log of everything.

I thought we were gonna sit down and just look at these line items, and that's not the case.

So I'm really hoping, rather it's publicly or the meeting you and I have scheduled coming up that we're gonna get answered to these questions, and it's not gonna be because somebody's transferred into a different department that we can't um get answers.

And and and that part was really a part of this question was how much did the training cost?

And there is a cost associated with it, and I would have liked for it to be here.

And and the second piece to that is the maintenance.

I'm a scooter rider, I have been for a very long time every year.

I have to pay uh 300, they're coming to my house Thursday to pick my scooter up to for maintenance, a tune up to get it ready for the summer.

And like it would have been good for the question to be answered about ongoing maintenance for Harley Davidson motorcycles, right?

Like, and so like I would like a follow-up to that.

What is the maintenance cost?

Where is the money gonna come from from maintenance for this?

Because you use the forfeiture fund for this purchase, but like what is the follow-up to that?

Like, how are we gonna get this paid for in the future?

I mean, now I mean, I don't know.

I've never had a motorcycle, my sister does, but I don't know like how much it costs to maintain that every year, and where is this money gonna come from and where is it gonna be in the line item every year for me to see and to go back to Ward for North Minneapolis and say this is for the motorcycles.

And then I mean the bigger question though is what is the motorcycle unit for?

Like, I have no clue what it's for, and would love to know more about that.

Sure.

Chair, council member.

Uh the motorcycle unit is a secondary assignment, so it's not officers' primary assignment, it's it it is secondary.

Um it is very common in most major city police departments around the country.

Um, we are looking to use them not specifically for enforcement, uh more for you know, both in the downtown core around a lot of these large congested events.

Uh they're a lot more mobile uh and can respond faster in the event of a critical incident.

Uh also looking to use them more around community engagement and presence uh around community events.

Um they were around last year.

Uh one officer actually responded to the Annunciation Church, uh, and then they were present in the aftermath at some of the the community events around that.

Um so those are the primary reasons for it.

Um the officers tend to be more visible uh and tend to be noticed uh and are able to, there's been a lot of positive feedback uh that we've had so far in that it helps officers engage in a positive way uh with people in the community.

Um so those are those are really the main reasons why.

Um but currently it is as several other components of the department are, it's it's a secondary assignment for officers.

Okay, meaning like there's no traffic unit that like, I mean, that that's what I know motorcycle units to do.

Chair, council member, the the full-time members of the traffic unit are investigators, so they're just the people that respond out for the you know the traffic investigations.

Okay, got it.

Um what about I I mean, this thanks for this ledger, but it's still kind of hard to understand some of this, and like I said, everything doesn't need to be answered today.

But I'm trying to also get to the bottom of like uh the take-home vehicles.

I know the question maybe wasn't as clear, Chief, but I I was trying to understand like expenses uh associated with that with this question, like how many take-home vehicles are out there, and um like how much do we pay as a city?

Because uh Chief, if someone has a take-home vehicle, do we get gas for it or do they get gas for it?

Chair, council member, um the the majority of vehicles, for example, for people that are in the appointed staff are contractual, uh, and it's defined by contract.

Uh then the remaining vehicles that are there uh are discretionary under policy, and that's for a number of people that may need to respond from home to an emergency.

So there's certain supervisors around the SWAT unit and special operations division, uh, all of the homicide investigators.

Now that we have a fast team, uh the officers that are on call, if you will, for shootings and those.

Um, and yes, uh, I believe the the uh like the gas and the maintenance, that's all provided by the city.

Okay.

Do you know how many people in the department have a take-home vehicle?

We do I we do chair council member, we do know that.

I just don't have it.

Okay, all right.

That that'd be great to know.

And then this this item uh zero one, this might be for Director DeSenza, but there's an item 0120, and it says add bill for unit 7428, armored swap ban is 13968.

But then it says add another unit and it says 23 dollars.

What oh a 23.

What does that mean?

Yeah.

This one?

I don't know, I think the 23 is right there.

Yeah, I don't know what that means.

Um, through the chair, council member vita.

Um, I think you'll see for a few of those vehicles that there's a few lines and there might just be um uh multiple invoices that hit so these were just the expense transactions.

So so there was so the bottom the one underneath that is that saying that 2020 was used to purchase a new van, but these other two are just the bills that go along with the SWAT van.

Through the chair, yes, uh, council member vita.

You'll also see um yeah, it's the same vehicle number.

Same vehicle number.

So we tried to to show for you consistently the vehicle numbers that you could sort of trace that back.

You know, at the base, you'll see that there's bomb unit trucks and then upfitting for them.

So the upfitting is is recorded separately from the from the truck purchase.

Okay, I got it.

So Chief, is there like a um is there like a ledger or something with all of the vehicles or like in the trailers and stuff that we have because the the finance department sent me something a few weeks ago that showed like two trailers at like 1.3 million or something like that.

And I don't know what that's reflected at on this.

I don't know when they were purchased, but it was certainly um you know, this expense of over a million dollars for two trailers.

Chair, council member, I'm gonna pass it off to Commander Reisdorfer who oversees the and deals with the fleet stuff.

Oh, thank you.

Welcome, Commander.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um, to answer your question, the weight fleet Services manages our fleet.

Each and every vehicle or trailer gets its own P number is what we call it.

So when you look at that document, you're seeing right there, you'll see 744 24.

That's its own essential social security number of that vehicle, and fleet services has a complete list of everything for the entire city, not just MPD.

So we would be able to go back to Fleet Services and pull that, and then we also maintain a record management for the chief as well.

Okay.

So that's something I could work with you on a scene, like what exists for the vehicles.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Um, I think that's it for now, council member.

Chair, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Um I had some follow-up questions as well.

Um, not seeing anyone else in queue, but I'll I I'm happy to pause if others get in.

Um I'll start with looking at the the first table that's provided in the in the memo.

I really appreciate um appreciate that.

Uh and we'll start at the bottom because I don't want to start with a question about staffing and then get completely derailed and never come back, never move on.

Um, so starting at the bottom.

There's an and it outlines all of the different aspects of the police department budget that was either under budget or over budget.

Um, as an example, uh starting from the bottom, um, under capital equipment, this budget was overspent by 1.3 million dollars.

Um, can someone speak to why that was the case?

What's the 1.3 million dollar overage for specifically?

I'm going to yield back if that's okay.

If you give uh through the chair, if you give me 30 seconds, take your time.

I can answer that for you.

And then I'll just preview for you.

We're gonna go right back up the list.

So after that is gonna be other, and then travel, transportation parking.

Take your time.

Um, through the chair, I have in my notes that the capital equipment 1.3 million dollars spend was the purchase of two command trailers, and the operating operational impacts of that I can't speak to.

All good.

So we'll pause there and invite up someone from the police department to speak to what a command trailer is and what its purpose was in this case.

It's just for context, there were $16,000 for capital equipment in your budget, and you spent 1.3 million dollars, and so that's why I'm asking.

Uh council, uh, excuse me, a little new to this.

So uh good.

Uh chair, going back to the that vehicle where we're talking about that extra 300,000.

So what takes place right now is when we buy a vehicle, there's usually a replacement plan with the city, and so we set money aside to essentially replace this vehicle.

When it came time to replace that vehicle specifically, there wasn't enough money set aside for it where we actually had to buy a smaller version of it to try and get us into that budget.

And so this is an example of where the fleet services side, we didn't have those funds, and that's where that over budget came from.

Um that that makes sense.

So you purchase four of them, that's how we got to 1.3 million dollars, or what?

The one command trailer was um 75013.

That's the 291,000.

That's listed underneath the vehicle one.

That's the one that I was referring to.

The second one, I'll have to pull that specific information.

Sorry, I don't have that off the top of my head.

Oh, good.

Yeah.

Uh it would just be helpful in a follow-up memo if you can outline then uh where where the remainder of that 1.3 million comes from.

Thank you.

Um, let's for the sake of convenience, skip over the $6 that went uh that are over in um the other category.

Now let's move on to travel.

Uh, you had a hundred and twenty thousand dollars budgeted, you ended up spending three hundred and ten thousand dollars, so you were approximately a hundred and ninety thousand over budget.

Why were you $190,000 over budget for travel?

I see the chief coming up.

Uh Chair.

Um I don't have the specifics on all of the training, but there's a number of training uh that will travel related to training that's out of state.

So for like the bomb technicians that need training, that's out of state.

There's a lot of things related to the bone, the uh drone, the negotiators, um, some hostage rescue training that happened during 2025, um, threat assessments, uh, some things for traffic around DRE, uh drug recognition expert, and a number of different uh leadership training classes that are held out of state.

Um typically what happens with training and the travel that's associated with that.

Um it is vetted through the the training division.

Um and then there's uh the the ultimately the deputy chief uh over training specifically makes the approval, um, working with the finance director to identify the funding source.

I appreciate that you bring up what happens typically because typically what happens in every other department that doesn't have the money to pay for travel is they um usually bring forward a gift acceptance and they get the uh the the vendor that's doing the training to um pay for said training.

I know there's actually several gift acceptances that come forward almost always late from the police department uh for travel and lodging um expenses related to attending conferences, trainings, whatever it may be.

So um it just concerns me that um that you know the road to 20 million dollars, 21 million dollars is paved by overages bit by bit, and so um that you went 190,000 over budget instead of finding gift acceptances or finding other ways to to make up those cost savings is just a little concerning for the sake of convenience.

Again, we'll skip over transportation and parking and training and education no um taxes, licenses, and fees, which are both under a thousand dollars.

But let's go to supplies, where you went uh about twenty-three thousand dollars above budget.

Can you speak to what supplies is, what that means, what that overage is?

Chair, I don't know.

Wonderful.

We'll take that for uh follow a follow-up memo.

Um in the bucket of operating costs.

The next item um that went over budget was subscriptions, about three thousand dollars, but there was no budget for subscriptions in the first place.

Can you speak to I I would imagine this is just one subscription that might have been a paramount importance that I don't know about?

Chair, I I don't have the information on the majority of these, but we can follow up with any specifics, then we'll take that as a follow-up memo as well.

Um repair and maintenance supplies, two hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars.

Would you know about that?

Chair, we'd have to follow up with that.

All good public safety legal expenditures, fifty-four thousand dollars.

Chair, you could ask me literally every single line in the budget.

I I don't know it offhand.

Okay, I mean, I guess that was the purpose of this legislative directive is we were seeking a detailed description of all of the budget overages in the department that were spent in 2020.

For each area where money was overspent, detail whether or not this was in external service to residents or money spent internally in the department.

So I I that's let that's all it I'm surprised.

Yeah.

Chair, I was not aware of any request around this until we received the legislative directive.

And I've heard since then that council members were trying to get information, but it did not come to me.

I don't know if it went to someone in the police department, but it did not come to me.

Uh the legislative directive was approved a couple cycles ago.

That's winning.

Okay.

Yeah.

I think it's been two cycles now.

Um I'll just go through other categories just in case you have information about some of them.

Uh food and beverage, $2,000 above budget.

Chair, I believe uh.

You know, for example, I don't remember in 2025, but for example, in January, there were times where we had to buy uh food and beverage because we had people working, you know, in the command post during the surge, that kind of thing.

I don't recall in 2025 what what events that would have been.

Okay.

But that's the type of thing that that line is for.

Yeah.

So we'll we'll note for a follow-up memo if you can detail what this $2,000 is overages for.

To be clear, the base budget was $40,000 for food and beverage, and you went $2,000 above budget.

Um for awards, contributions and grants.

Um there was no budget for it, and about $7,000 were spent.

Um should we include that as a follow-up memo as well?

Yes, please.

Okay, sounds good.

Um the next two, I actually think might be appropriate for the deputy CFO.

Um these are internal service charges for IT and fleet that both were above budget.

I understand that the model for uh cost allocation for internal service charges is a part of the calculation during the current service level.

Can you just speak to why the actual um for an uh internal service charge might be higher than what's budgeted?

Sure.

Um, Chair Chug Tai.

So um I think Commander Weisdover got at this a little bit earlier with the fleet fund being um, you know, the budget for that has been slowly um ticking down.

Um and so there is less balance available for some of the fleet replacement costs.

So they may be charging, they're charging the department for some of the services that would normally have just been covered.

Um I think it's we can get more specifics on the IT charges, but if they're um as departments have more subscriptions as services, those charges are more variable than in prior years where we just bought a software and that was a static cost.

That's helpful to know, and then it uh in the follow-up memo, it'd also be helpful to detail out uh there's a subscriptions line item that also went over budget.

So what's the distinction between subscriptions as it's outlined in this table and uh subscriptions that may be included as a part of internal services IT?

Absolutely.

Is my question making sense?

It does, and I think Chair Tugtai, what I would be expecting in the subscriptions line are things like professional associations, that those types of expenses.

I know finance has our GFOA membership in that in that line.

That's helpful, thank you.

Um Chief of we can get you get you back.

Um so the next several are in the contractual services budget, and we started with the first two that were for the deputy CFO.

Um the utilities uh section of your contractual services budget went $72,000 above its uh $330,000 budget.

Um would you like that noted for a follow-up memo?

Chair, my understanding that's literally utilities like electric bills and stuff like that.

Okay.

Um, then it would be just helpful to know if we always if the department always goes over budget there.

Um I see the deputy nodding.

Yes, so we'll that one I'll consider answered.

Um transportation didn't have a budget, but ended up spending 11 just over 11,000 on transportation.

I honestly I can't tell what the difference is between transportation and the listed here, and then the transportation and parking um line item that's below.

But if if you would uh let's let's note that for a follow-up memo, because you wanted a follow-up memo earlier on this area.

Next we can continue to training, um, which went six hundred and two thousand dollars above budget.

It's uh it's but it was budgeted three hundred and thirty thousand dollars.

So you spent about twice as much as what was budgeted.

Can you tell me about what what that was for?

Chair, um, again, I don't have all the specifics, but there was a lot of training last year.

Um the training division itself conducted about 20,000 hours of training in-house, and then in addition to that, uh many members were sent outside of the department uh for additional training.

There's a number of the training that is conducted that is required for members to maintain various certifications uh and licenses, uh, and then in addition, um a lot of emphasis has been placed on uh leadership training and trying to develop members of the department.

I think okay, that's helpful.

I think uh in the follow-up memo here, what would be helpful is uh understanding the distinction of what's being counted in the training section here versus the training and education line item in operating costs versus the travel line item under operating costs.

You've you've brought up training as a response to the question about travel being so significantly above budget, so it'd just be helpful to know what is training, how it and how does that relate to the different line items and what actually contributed to them going over budget?

Um next we'll go to space and equipment rent, uh, which was a hundred and thirty thousand dollars above budget.

Can you speak to that, or would you like that to come in a follow-up memo?

Chair, it's possible uh that is the grain exchange.

Um, grain exchange.

Across the street where we have some space rented out.

Um, but I'm just I'm not certain.

Great.

So we'll note that clerks for a follow-up memo.

Um, repair and maintenance was a hundred and thirteen thousand dollars above budget.

Can you speak to that?

No.

Let's get that clerks noted for a follow-up memo.

Radio and telephone services was three hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars above budget, nearly twice its uh allocated budget for 2025.

Would you like to address that or are you able to address that or would you like that in a follow-up memo?

Chair, I'm not able to address that.

Um I know if that was the cell phones.

I believe the the line for that was reduced.

I just I don't know if that's also the cell phones, that particular line.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Um, so if we could get that noted for a follow-up.

Professional services um had a three point three million dollar budget, and it went it was a hundred one point seven five above.

Please, um, Chair Chucktai, and I should have mentioned this in my remarks.

We did not, um, as you are aware of, we have the settlement agreement, general fund obligated reserve, those figures are left in here for maximum transparency.

And so some of those um overspendings, particularly I would say in professional services would be associated with that required um settlement spending.

Look so like Alifa contract, no, that lives in the U.S.

I believe the Alifa contract hits elsewhere, but some of those required trainings and like the uh the contract to get through the backlog, for example, is hitting the MPD budget.

Okay, okay, that's helpful.

Um, well, that would be concerning because that was supposed to fit within the department's existing budget.

Um, so if we could get that addressed within a follow-up memo, that would be great as well, Chief.

Um, printing $57,000 above budget.

Can we speak to that?

Uh no.

Follow-up memo, please.

Um, parking, $290,000 above budget.

Follow-up memo?

It chair, I don't think I can answer the remainder of these things on here.

I just don't know all of this offhand.

Okay.

So for parking, miscellaneous, medical services, intergovernmental expenses, advertising and publication, unemployment, pension, life and disability insurance, health and uh no, health and dental was within budget.

Well, over time, it'd be really helpful to get follow-up memos that detail what exactly the overage came from.

Are there any questions, colleagues?

Councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair.

Chief.

Just one last thing.

You know, back in the day, I was the chair of public health and safety.

Um, and the the uh bomb squad had these trainings all the time, but we received grants for them.

Like has that change?

I always thought, like, we got we really never paid for any of that, and they would come because they would come through the committee all the time from the feds and from state grants for that training.

Are we paying for have we lost those grants now and we have to pay for them?

Or I know you said you maybe um needed to check on that, but just wondering like if we've started to lose funding on uh those grants for getting training because there certainly was a lot of um of uh funds from the feds and from the state that came through committee.

So I would certainly like to know if if you're seeing a trend because we have to account for that if that's the case.

If we're starting to lose money and support and and it's not budgeted for that.

Uh Chair Councilmember, I do know some of the training uh during this time period is covered by the FBI.

Um but I believe there are other expenses related to bomb training that we incur.

I don't know if that has changed over time or if that was always the case.

Okay.

Well, my office will send some questions, Chief, so that we can get some things in advance in preparation for our um I'm sorry, our one-hour meeting.

But I this is kind of concerning because like I know the firefighters lost some money for um like more firefighters and all these things.

So I think I'm I'm just a little concerned that these trainings that we know we need, if we're not getting grants and we don't have funding for it, how do we allocate uh money for that?

And like if or if we are just getting the grants still um for these trainings, through the chair, council member vita, I think I think we can still do some more research on that.

I did just want to note um in last summer, um, the council did vote on uh $30,000 um increase revenue to the police department associated with um the bomb squad, and that was part of a JPA with the state um for those services, but we can follow up if there's any other.

But that was for services, right?

That wasn't for like the training.

I I just recall the trainings being paid for, okay, and like a gift acceptance coming through, and we did not have expenses associated with that, or if we did, it was very minimal.

We can find out okay, thank you.

That that's it for me.

Great.

And then let's just make sure uh clerks, you've noted the question from council member vita about uh grants that we receive for this.

Thank you.

Um I'm not seeing anyone else in queue, so I'll ask the clerk to receive and file this report, and perhaps we'll continue this item to the next uh committee of the whole meeting, as most of our questions today were not answered, so that they may be answered at our next committee of the whole meeting.

Um, and certainly at that time we can continue it again if if uh we have the department unprepared um to respond.

Um with that uh we have completed all business to come before this committee today, and without objection, we are adjourned.