Welcome to the regular meeting of the Public Health Safety and Equity Committee for June 3rd, 2026.

I am Jason Chavez, the chair of this committee.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation.

These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community.

Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast.

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

At this time, I will ask the clerk to call the roll so we can verify a quorum for this meeting.

Councilmember Payne.

Present.

Rainbow.

Absent.

Vita present.

Whiting.

Present.

Vice Chair Stevenson.

Present.

And Chair Chavez.

Present.

That is six members present.

Let the record reflect that we have a quorum and we will be joined by Councilmember Rainbow in a little bit.

I'll remind my colleagues that we'll be using speaker management today.

So please make sure to sign in.

Our agenda is in front of us.

So before we begin with the consent agenda, I'll move to delete item number three, the appointment of police chief from the former police chief Brian O'Hara from the agenda.

Brian O'Hara has resigned from his position as police chief, and no public hearing will be held.

So on the motion to delete, I will open up the queue if there's any comments or questions.

All right.

On the motion to delete, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

That motion is deleted.

We will have two scheduled public hearings, item number one and number two on the agenda after we conclude with our consent agenda.

If you would like to speak on either public hearing item and you have not signed up yet, please see the clerks at the registration table outside of the hall.

On our consent agenda, we have a variety of different items.

Item number four authorizes a contract amendment with Michael S.

Wilson for audit services for neighborhood associations.

Item number five authorizes a contract amendment with trajectory changing solutions for violence prevention services.

Item number six authorizes contract amendments with restoration inc, metro youth diversion, and touch outreach for Minneapolis Strategic Outreach Initiative Services.

Item number seven accepts the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant for Enhancing Emergency Management Capabilities and authorizes an agreement with the Minnesota Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for the grants.

Item number 11 sets a public hearing for June 17, 2026 for the all gender and sexuality welcoming city ordinances.

Item number 12 sets a public hearing for June 12 17th, 2026 for the law enforcement concealment of identity ordinance, which is a separate item from the one we have on the public hearing today.

I'll pull this item for a separate motion and a quick discussion.

Item number 13 says a public hearing for June 17, 2026 for the adult bathhouse and sex venues health and sanitation ordinance.

Item number 14 says a public hearing for June 17, 2026 to considers the mayor's nomination of Rachel Sayer to the appointed position of emergency management department director.

Item number 15 sets a public hearing for July 8th, 2026 to consider a no-cost contract with SkyDO for a drone as first responder pilot program for the period of 75 days beginning July 2026.

Colleagues, is there any discussion or are there any items anyone would like to pull for further discussion?

Council President Payne.

Can we take up item 15 as a separate vote?

And Council President Payne, yes, we can, but this is the public, it's to set up public hearing, it's not the item itself.

Ah, got it.

Is do you still want to pull it out?

No, that's okay.

Okay, so we will keep that under consent.

As a reminder, item number 15 is just setting the public hearing, it's not the vote itself.

Okay.

So no one wishes to pull anything out except myself, which is item number 12.

All those in favor on approving these items 4 through 11, 13 to 15, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstention that item carries.

Item number 12 is the law enforcement concealment of identity ordinance, which is a separate ordinance from the one that we have today.

Uh, I'm gonna move to postpone this to the next public health and safety committee, which is June 17, 2026, as uh the authors and myself continue to have conversations on a pathway forward for this ordinance.

Is there any discussion uh or questions my colleagues have?

Council President Payne.

Uh thank you, Chair Chavez.

Uh, I just grateful for you taking the lead on this.

Um, I'll never forget waking up to the news that Melissa Hortman was assassinated and her killer was still on the loose.

Um, it is completely um I don't even have the words to describe what it was like to both wake up to that type of news and then live through an uh occupation by the federal government and not know who was law enforcement, who wasn't law enforcement, who were you safe to be around, who are you not safe to be around?

And I think that it just completely dismantles any concept of trust and government to allow for uh that kind of conduct.

And so I'm just grateful that we're using all of our power at the local level to make sure that that doesn't happen again.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

Just the question.

Did you say you're moving this back one more cycle?

Yeah, so we would I would be moving to postpone any action on this item until the next council meeting as the authors continue to figure out what we're gonna do.

Okay, and you and I had discussion about this.

Is this like the larger?

Okay, correct.

Thank you.

Yep, and so today there would be no action on it as authors.

We're still navigating the broader ordinance that will speak a little bit into more details today, but it is separate from the item, um, just for the public to know the loan that we're having today.

So please stay if you're here for the public hearing.

So, yes.

So, do we think like the two weeks is gonna make a change, or is this like a month out thing maybe?

We just needed that time today, it's not gonna be next cycle.

We just needed two weeks, so at least as authors we collect ourselves and figure out our next steps.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

On that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

That is gonna be on the agenda next cycle as an item, not a public hearing.

Um right, colleagues.

Next, we're gonna take up our public hearings reflected in items number one and two on the agenda.

Anybody who signed up for these items will be given two minutes each to testify.

If you have questions, please see our clerks at the registration table outside.

For everyone in attendance, and especially those who may participate in our hearings or comment period, let me offer this notice.

These hearings are being recorded and broadcasted.

Both the recording and the broadcast are classified as public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

By attending and participating in these proceedings, your image and any testimony or information that you provide will also be subject to disclosure under the law.

That includes but is not limited to your attendance, your name, and other personal details you provide, as well as any testimony or comments you provide, which includes any written submissions you make, which are included for the record of this meeting.

Our first public hearing is for the law enforcement agency agreements ordinance.

I will speak on this item.

So we'll just wait for the presentation to go up.

Uh colleagues, this is the law enforcement agency agreements accountability ordinance authored by myself, Councilmember Chowderry, Councilmember Chugtai, and Councilmember Osman.

This ordinance prohibits the city from entering into or amending a law enforcement joint powers agreement unless an agency's officers are prohibited from concealing their identity while performing activities within the city of Minneapolis.

This applies regardless of dollar amount, and it requires that a requester for JPA approval must disclose whether the agency has a concealment policy and whether the agency will apply that policy when it is operating within the city of Minneapolis, regardless of whether the agency is operating under the terms of the proposed JPA.

This slide includes amendments that we are proposing today.

The prohibition contains the following exceptions when an officer is actively engaged in and performing the responsibilities and furtherance of an undercover assignment.

However, the law enforcement agency would need to demonstrate that at the time the officer was masked, they were actively engaged in and performing work in furtherance of an undercover assignment.

Wearing a shield or eye protection that does not conceal the officer's face, wearing a medical or facial covering to prevent the transmission of disease, infection, or bodily fluids during medical calls, emergency situations, or other interactions or protection of the officer, individual or the public is reasonably necessary, wearing air purifier respirators, self-contained breathing apparatus or other facial protections, wearing a helmet assigned to special weapons and tactical team units, so the SWAT, wearing a facial covering to protect against inclement weather if the facial covering has officers' names and batch number visibly effixed, which it has the specific amount uh of when that exception would be included, and actively collecting evidence or taking photographs at a crime scene.

So this ordinance is really important because a city can ensure that when it enters into JPAs with uh different law enforcement agencies, those officers are identified to the public and the agencies acting under the terms of the agreement are not concealing their identities, except for the few exceptions.

And it is important that residents recognize those who are sworn to protect and serve them to be able to report any police misconduct that may occur.

This ordinance is effective for JPAs entered or amended on or after August 31st, 2026.

And I will say that I understand that this is not everything that community has been asking for or advocating for, but I'll say that it's a start, and you have my commitment to continue finding a pathway for the more broader masking ordinance that folks have been advocating for the past year and beyond.

We know that this ordinance is limited in scope, but it is still very important.

And I just want to at least start with that.

So with that, colleagues, we'll open up for questions after the public hearing that you may have.

And I'll see if anybody is signed up.

Thank you, Vice Chair Stevenson.

Uh the first person we have today is Yan.

And if I mispronounce your name, please let me know.

Do I do I start?

Hello, council.

Thank you for having a public hearing on this uh topic.

Uh my name is pronounced Jan, but it's okay.

Um, I like to speak out uh in favor of this um new policy.

I do think that it does not go far enough in terms of protecting the citizens who both live in Minneapolis or myself who frequently commute to and you know do business in the city.

Um today is June 3rd, and I think it's pertinent to remember that June 3rd last year was when the first major operation um occurred at um Lake and Bloomington, where I don't even know, hundreds of thousands of people, neighbors came out to protest, uh undisclosed federal actions from multiple agencies who were all wearing masks to obscure their identities in very non-uniform ways.

So a lot of the things that I'm reading about in the existing text would have stopped those actions a year ago.

The problem that I see with this is that unlike uh the provision that was passed in St.

Paul, which I see that much of this language is modeled after, um, there is no specifics about how the city is going to engage with federal uh officers in sort of regulating this behavior within the city, even though it's not coming from city police.

So that thing is definitely needs to be um amended to provide some sort of uh pathway to preventing any sort of agency from operating with facial coverings that obscure their identity and prevent any sort of accountability on our end.

And I think the city um should be able to improve the language in order to adopt this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alvin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chavez.

My name is Alvin Chung, and I'm a constituent of Minneapolis Ward 2.

I'm also a member of the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee or MIRAC.

I'm here to voice our strong support for the ordiners to restrict masking.

To this day, we're still struggling to get justice for Renee Good, Alec Predi, and Victor Manuel Diaz, three Minnesotans who were killed by ICE during Operation Metro Surge.

It's extremely clear that the federal government will do just about anything to escape accountability for crimes ranging from pedophilia, corruption, and murder.

Thus, the onus is on local and state government to stop enabling federal governments, federal agents to abuse our communities and get away with it.

City Council and Mayor Fry, do right by the people that have been terrorized and murdered in your city and passed this ordinance to require mask regulation from any last law enforcement agency the city partners with.

And that should only be the first step.

We need to move forward to banning secret police in our city entirely.

St.

Paul has already enacted a policy of requiring all law enforcement officers conducting operations in their city to do so without a mask or facial covering months ago.

It is frankly embarrassing that the city that has faced the brunt of Operation Metro Surge is still debating this topic.

From our sanctuary city campaign last fall, where Mirac successfully pushed for a stronger separation ordinance in Minneapolis, we are all too aware of the immense amount of pressure needed to get Mayor Frye and other elected officials to do the right thing.

That's why Mirac is continuing our momentum with the Sanctuary State Now campaign, where we are pushing walls and the gubernatorial candidates to enact statewide measures to protect our communities from the violence of immigration enforcement, like banning collaboration with between local agencies and ICE and banning the masking of federal agents.

Therefore, we strongly support policies like this.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sally.

Welcome.

Hi there.

My name is Sally Lieberman.

I'm a lifelong Minneapolitan and a member of Unidos, Minnesota.

I live in Ward 12.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and committee members for listening.

I would like to speak in support of this ordinance, amending the city's code to ensure that when our city enters into agreements with other law enforcement agencies, those agreements disallow concealment of identity.

The issue of law enforcement personnel concealing their identities is something that unfortunately we Minneapolitans have a lot of experience with.

Due to the behavior of federal immigration enforcers during Operation Metro Surge, we have seen with our own eyes how wearing masks can be used as a form of intimidation, especially against immigrants and communities of color.

We have also seen a direct correlation between identity concealment and lawless behavior on the part of law enforcement.

From running red lights to racial profiling to acts of violence and physical harm to violations of our first and fourth amendment rights.

I also believe we should all be concerned with the potential for identity concealment to become normalized and to creep into local policing.

For example, when responding to a protest at the Whipple building recently, Hennepin County Sheriff deputies were caught on film wearing ice style face coverings while being violent toward protesters.

When our city enters into agreements with county law enforcement or neighboring jurisdictions, those agencies should follow MPD's basic standard.

Officers show their faces, they have badges, and they always answer the question what is your name?

When we are being policed, and we don't know who is policing us, that is not public safety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Drew.

Thank you for hearing me today.

Uh my name is Drew.

I am proud member of Minnesota 5051.

I also want to speak in support of this ordinance.

Um I agree with some of the people who went before me.

You know, it doesn't quite go far enough in addressing some of the concerns.

Um, but you know, you have to start somewhere.

Um, you know, so we there's a lot of agreement here on why we need this, but like, here's why the city should pass it.

Because I've also heard, like, oh, but this only affects the city of Minneapolis.

Um, it's not gonna do that much, but again, we gotta start somewhere because we're losing faith in our city government, right?

Like we just went through Operation Metro Surge, and you know, a lot of us who were uh, you know, face to face with ICE during that time felt utterly abandoned, not just by our city, but by our county, by our state government.

So this is a really great step in the right direction, right?

Um, making sure that you're listening to the constituents and hearing people and you know, hearing our concerns, because again, like we cannot have masked police.

I even think some of that in that ordinance, right?

Like if they're sick, stay home.

You know, don't wear a mask because I I can already see all the ice agents saying they're scared of getting sick all of a sudden willing to wear masks, right?

So, you know, I think make it stronger if you can, but start here, it's a great start.

And again, you know, work towards uh work towards getting ice out of Minneapolis, period, right?

But you know, work towards no mask policing, MPD, Henleman County Sheriff's Office, and they're gonna be in our city, no masks.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

Next up, we have Rob.

And then we're gonna have Alyssa.

And then if you have not signed up and you're here to testify, please do so.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Alyssa Washington.

I'm the executive director of the wrongfully incarcerated and over-sentenced families council, and I'm also a proud member of the Twin Cities Coalition for Justice.

Um, we are an family-led nonprofit, and we are here standing in solidarity with the MIRAC as well.

Um, I urge you to vote in favor of banning face coverings for law enforcement officers while they are carrying out their duties in our communities.

For decades, black, brown, and indigenous immigrant and poor communities in Minneapolis have suffered from a lack of accountability from policing institutions, as we all know.

We have buried loved ones, we have witnessed excessive force, we have been we have seen officers violate people's rights and then hide behind a system that too often protects itself.

Accountability starts with transparency.

When armed officers are operating in our neighborhoods, conducting traffic stops, making arrests, participating in raids, or engaging with community members, the public has a right to know who is policing them.

I know others have said that today, and I hope it really sticks with the council members that this is what the community is asking of you to vote in favor of.

This issue is especially important for emigrant communities who have recently experienced aggressive enforcement actions and fear.

It is important for families like mine who have spent years fighting for accountability from government institutions, and it is important for every resident who believes public servants should be identifiable when exercising public authority.

This is not about officer safety versus community safety.

We can have both, but we cannot have accountability without transparency.

Minneapolis has an opportunity to lead by showing that no one should wield state power from behind a mask while the public is left wondering who they are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next up we have Rob.

So before I my time begins, can I ask a clarifying question?

Where is Michael Rainville?

And where is Linnea Palmazzano?

And where is the rest of the council?

Thanks, Rob.

So we're gonna start the clock because we have to get going.

But Consorville is gonna be in attendance in a bit, and Consortium Palmasano is not on this committee.

Okay.

So these are the council members that need to hear this.

That's why I ask.

So my name's Rob.

I'm a public school teacher.

Uh and my son, when he was two years old, he was about 10 feet away when ice came at gunpoint, took our neighbors away, next door neighbors.

And that was back in January.

This morning, same thing happened.

This morning, the same thing happened about five blocks from where I live.

The same thing happened.

My question for the council is what is taking so long?

What is taking so long?

I don't want to hear excuses about the city attorney saying that there's this or that that they need to pass.

If Denver, Philly, Milwaukee, San Jose, St.

Paul back in February, can get this passed.

What is what is the holdup in Minneapolis?

You need to pass this, right?

You need to pass this.

And I know the people here, y'all want to pass this, right?

Um, the people who aren't here are the holdups, and we need a nine vote majority to over fry uh Jacob uh to overturn Jacob Fry's inevitable veto of this, right?

So, my question for you is: how can you work together to get this done?

We need more than this.

We need consequences in the legislation.

We need the legislation to have consequences, okay?

We can't just have this on the books.

There needs to be consequences for when uh the Hennepin County sheriffs come in uh masked and we don't know who they are, and people confuse them with ice, right?

My students are still in hiding five months later as a result of what's been going on because they don't know if they step out their door if some masked gunman's gonna take them, and they don't know who's who anymore, right?

So we need uh we need more than this.

We need more than this, but I want you to know the people who are here.

Um, you get a lot of hate from the mayor.

You get a lot of hate from the Facebook comments uh in from people in Lakeville.

But I like you, and I support you, and I want you to work together to get this done.

Thank you for your work.

All right, everyone.

If you have not signed up to testify, I'm gonna give three warnings.

Morning one, please sign up to testify.

No, second warning, third warning.

All righty.

Uh seeing no one else wishing to testify.

I will now close this hearing and open up the queue for any comments from my colleagues.

Uh, but I'll start off with a few comments.

I will move approval of this item with the revisions in front of us.

If I can get a second.

And um, colleagues, I hope that I can we can earn your support on this ordinance today.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not entirely what the community is asking for, but it is a start, and it gives us time to bring forward the future action that is on the agenda today that we uh moved to the next cycle meeting to hear the concerns from our community.

Uh, because the reality is is that mass agents have invaded our city and have taken advantage of our community.

And I hope when that time comes, uh we can earn your support uh to pass that ordinance as well.

This morning, a neighbor was kidnapped in ward nine by ICE agent in the Corcoran neighborhood.

There was a variety of ice agents, and they were masked, and that was a very scary situation for many of my constituents.

This individual had his window broken into and he was snatched from his car.

And one year ago today, law enforcement agents from a variety of different agencies surrounded Lake and Bloomington, and they concealed their identity and brought military trucks, long guns, and zip ties into our community that instilled quite frankly a lot of fear.

And throughout occupation metro surge, our city was invaded by the federal government.

We saw a variety of masked agents hiding their identities and kidnapping our immigrant neighbors, and that is just something that will never be acceptable to me.

So I'm hopeful that I can earn your support on this ordinance as amended, and also hear the concerns from our community that this is not enough.

I agree with you, and my commitment to the community is to continue to figure out how we can get that done, because you're correct.

St.

Paul passed this month's ago.

Why why aren't we?

I take that feedback very seriously, and I'm committed to working with my colleagues to hear any concerns that they have as well.

So I want to make sure that we can all get this done.

So with that, colleagues, are there any questions?

Council President Payne.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

I also agree this isn't enough.

Uh, but it is a start.

Uh I kind of have an overly simplified governing principle, which is like do something or do nothing.

Both of those are a choice.

We're choosing to do something here, but it isn't enough, and it's gonna open up for doing another thing, and another thing we need to keep on doing until we have full accountability for the occupation of Minneapolis and the abuses that the federal government had on the city of Minneapolis and its residents.

Um I'm grateful to County Attorney Mary Amoriarty for taking that first step of bringing charges for some of these federal agents who were violating our rights.

That's not enough either.

Um we got a national search warrant and arrested somebody in Texas.

That's not enough either, right?

There's still more to be done, and I'm committed to doing it.

So I'm really grateful for you all being here and making sure that we're held accountable to that work.

Councilmember Whiting.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

Uh, just want to note here too, and I think it's you know, uh looking at the ordinance, and I appreciate the work that you all have put into this, um, especially as we look forward as a creative way to attach some levels of of consequences and uh I think accountability uh in the frame of kind of law enforcement and law enforcement uh agencies across our city, and I think right it it sounds like kind of I'm trying to figure out you know the version of this and where the applicability uh of an ordinance like this does exist, right?

And I think as we have seen across the the country, uh right, these these federal agents aren't listening to the constitution.

Uh like are they likely to listen to an ordinance?

And so uh I think we know that answer is no.

Uh, but I think what this does do, and I would I appreciate the work of of what this does is kind of for those local jurisdictions, um, and ensuring that you know MPD, Hennepin County Sheriffs, um, any any agency in which the Minneapolis Police Department engages in these joint power agreements um has to be consistent to that.

And so uh I think it is a it's a deeper understanding of what this actually does and allows for and puts uh some some safeguards in place for that uh with uh agencies that we have an ability um to kind of come to that level of accountability piece, and then um just wanted to note here too, uh, because I think it's actually a fun fact.

So we don't necessarily have um a mask uh or a non-masking mandate in MPD policy uh at the moment, but it is uh technically against like MPD uniform standards, and so uh it isn't actually precluded uh in in level of MPD policy because you can't wear a mask with your uh like MPD-issued uniform, and so there's an ability for it to kind of fit uh in there as well.

And so uh again, I think just thank you to all the folks that are moving forward on this, and uh and I'm excited to see it move through.

Vice Chair Stevenson.

Yeah, thank you.

I wanted to thank my constituents and my friends for coming and uh speaking to this item.

This is super important.

Again, it's a first step, and uh your comments are really important and your push to us is really important to getting this across the finish line and doing what we all know we we should have done in November.

Sorry, not in February.

Um, so thank you.

Thanks for coming.

Council President Payne.

Uh, thank you, Chair Travis, Councilmember Whiting invoking the inability for the federal government to even comply with the constitution, just made me um remember the day that you know we were interacting with ICE agents at the second precinct parking lot, and we had a bunch of community observers just making sure that we knew where their location was, and they ended up in the second precinct parking lot, and I had to go and introduce myself as the council president and remind them that we had passed a law banning their use of our city-owned property for these purposes.

They didn't listen to me either, right?

I'm sitting there face to face with masked armed agents, completely ignoring me, ignoring the law of our city, ignoring the law of our country via our constitutional rights.

Um, but I thought it was really important to be able to stand firm that no, this is the law of the land.

And the thing that actually enforced that law was not me invoking my authority as the president of this body, it was the number of everyday people showing up and showing up and more and more and louder and louder that made them ultimately leave.

And it's just a reminder that this is a land governed by its people.

The laws are downstream from its people, and the people are the power, and we are gonna make sure that we are in alignment with our people, and we're gonna do that one law at a time and how we carry ourselves every day.

So really appreciate you being here again.

And it's just a reminder that even with the highest law of this land in the in our constitution, the highest law is the people.

So thank you.

Uh thank you.

I don't have my laptop with me.

Um I have a uh question for our city attorney.

I have been briefed on this, and I I uh said I was gonna ask this.

How will this affect uh the agreements we have with these agencies?

Has someone talked to these outside agencies to see what their response is.

Uh Chair uh Chavez and Councilmember, I actually don't know the answer to whether someone has talked with these other agencies.

This would apply to new or amended JPAs.

Um so when we had the discussions about those newer amended JPAs, that's the discussion that would have to happen then.

Um it would go into new contracts, amended contracts, um, but not change the ones that are currently in existence.

And I realize this is not to change what we have, but or maybe one of the authors knows uh what the response would be.

I mean, would they still enter into these agreements with us?

Um, so council member, I mean, we've been in discussion with the sheriffs um regarding this ordinance, which some of those conversations resulted in some of the amendments that are here today.

Uh some of the contracts we do have in these JPAs are the patrols and Hanneman County are some examples, so and what do they say?

Um, we met about some of the language that we brought forward today, and that's why there's amendments today.

So, yeah, Councilmember Vita.

Thank thank you, Chair.

Councilmember Rainville, um, when this came up, Councilmember Chavez gracefully worked with me and the sheriff's office.

They had a list of amendments that they wanted to work on in this ordinance, and they are certainly reflected in the final language of uh what we have before us today in the sheriff's office.

The sheriff's office was also coordinating with other um agencies around you know what a comprehensive ordinance change would look like.

Not not the larger one.

You you missed the discussion about the the larger, more broader one.

This has kind of been condensed into what um the council has authority to do right now with the joint palace agreement, but there's certainly been discussion with the partners in those agreements around the great, thank you.

And I do apologize uh to the committee for being late.

I was involved uh in a discussion about the shootings on Nicolat Mall and the deaths along the river this lap past couple days.

So I had to uh prioritize that.

Thank you.

No works.

Well there's let's just we're not gonna have any public.

Thank you.

We just did this public testimony.

We're gonna focus on the committee work today.

So council member whiting.

Or actually, sorry, Councilmember Vita.

No, I was just coming.

Councilmember Whiting.

Perfect.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

And just wanted to uh to uh make a note as well uh specifically about kind of some comments here, so I wanted to correct the record right.

Uh this is a committee.

There's only seven of us, so the rest of the council isn't here.

So it's only us as a committee.

Uh and it and it's excited to see, I think the majority uh of this uh will actually probably move forward with a hopeful unanimous mote, and I highly doubt uh it will be vetoed.

I know council member Palmasano uh fully supports uh this ordinance is written and know Councilmember Vita and Councilmember Chavez work together with the the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office to come up with a version of this to actually move forward in this body, and so uh just wanted to make sure that was out there as well.

Yep, thanks, Councilmember Whiting, and all right, no one else is on queue, so uh if we may take a roll call on the amended version with approval, that would be great.

Thanks, Clerk.

Councilmember Payne.

Aye, Lonsley, aye, Rainville.

Aye, Vita, aye.

Whiting?

Aye.

Vice Chair Stevenson.

Aye, and Chair Chavez.

Aye.

That is seven eyes.

Thank you.

And that is move forward with approval to the full council.

Our next item is a public hearing on a contract amendment with Sound Thinking Inc.

for a gunshot location system in 2025.

Council adopted an ordinance related to surveillance technology contracts.

This ordinance requires a presentation on the proposed contract and a public hearing be held before city enters intersurveillance technology contracts.

I will invite up emergency communications director, Joni Hudney to begin that presentation.

Good afternoon, Chair Chavez.

Council members, I'm Joni Hodney, the director of 911.

You'll be hearing today from both myself and from Deputy Chief Riddle about the benefits of ShotSpotter, both for our residents and as a critical tool supporting 911 and our first responders.

Our goal today isn't to give you our goal today is to give you a clear understanding on what the technology is and what it isn't, and how it enhances our ability to be able to respond.

Shot spotter is essentially an array of acoustic sensors placed strategically throughout the city.

When gunfire occurs, those sensors work together to pick up the sound and to regulate it, triangulate it, meaning they work together to determine exactly where it came from.

The technology gives us details that callers often can't, such as the number of shots, whether from multiple firearms, if the shots were an automatic gun, or even if their shooter was moving, all of this helps us to build an accurate picture of what's happening much faster than traditional means.

The system screens out non-gunshot noises such as fireworks and backfires.

Sensors are tuned to detect only the high-energy impulsive sound that's unique to gunfire.

Shot spotter does not function as an acoustic surveillance tool.

While no system is perfect, ShotSpotter includes multiple layers of filtering, so we aren't sending officers to fireworks or a car backfire.

I'll explain the process more fully in a slide later on, but important is not that this is not a surveillance tool.

These sensors are not designed to pick up conversation.

They're tuned to detect one very specific type of sound, and that's gunfire.

Gunshots have a very distinct wave pattern compared to other loud noises.

So the system is engineered to capture those noises and sounds.

Some of the shot spotter benefits that we're going to talk about is that it provides rapid, detailed alerts that help responders.

As soon as the gunfire is detected, responders receive a very specific location information, often more precise than what we can get from callers.

It's understandable that callers may only have a general sense of the direction when they're calling in.

Officers can see this information on smartphones and computer equipment inside the squad cars while dispatches receiving this information and able to give more detailed information along with callers that are calling in to the responders that are going to the scene.

Seconds truly matter, and any technology that gets responders to the right spot faster has the potential to save lives.

From the 911 perspective, ShotSpotter fills in the gaps we often had when taking a shots fired call.

Callers do their best, but we frequently hear conflicting information.

Someone thinks the shots came from the north.

Another caller reports they came from the south.

One person may have heard 10 shots and another person may have heard 20.

Without additional tools, it's difficult to determine what's actually occurring.

ShotSpotter gives us concrete details, location, number of rounds, and movement that helps us identify if a vehicle is if the shots are being fired from a vehicle or somebody running down the street.

These help us make more timely and accurate decisions to ensure officers are going exactly where they're needed.

Here's kind of what happens behind the scenes when a shot spotter activation goes off.

Each acoustic sensor captures the precise location and sound.

That is then sent to a sound thinking center, actually out in California, where the group of people that are listening to these, that's all they listened for all day long is these wave files to determine if it's fireworks, backfires, or gunshots.

That helps them to weed out the ones that are not gunshot activity and be able to send to us in less than 60 seconds an accurate picture of shots fired in the area.

Well, sometimes 60 seconds may seem a long time period.

I can tell you that there was a time period before technology improved that we used to have to listen to these files ourselves down at the 911 center that often took more time than what this takes for it to bounce out to California and back to us.

Being trained and learning how to look at those files and be able to hear that sound and determine what it was was less accurate for us when we've got all of our background noise and the callers and dispatches going on in the background.

So this has proven to be a much more reliable tool for us.

So here's what happens when the shot spotter activation goes off.

We get a screen that pops up that shows us the yellow flag that you see here, which tells us where the shots are being fired from and a number of shots that are being fired.

If there's already a related call, we add that to the comments so that we've got the combined information from our callers in the area as well as the information from the shot spotter system.

In this particular picture, you can see it's kind of hard to see, but there are two shots being fired from that location.

The other tool that we have with the shot spotter mapping inside the dispatch center is we can pull up an accurate location.

So imagine it's January, there's two feet of snow on the ground, officers have gone out and they're trying to locate shell casings, which is critical to them helping to solve shootings or pick up uh calls for even ones that haven't been an actual shooting but are from a case because of the shots being fired.

We can take this tool and we can measure from any point that we want to at this and tell the officers, for example, look six feet from the front door to the north of the yard for these shell casings that might now be buried under snow.

This allows the officers to have a more precise location to be able to start to take this down.

One of the key factors with this is the being able to let them know that this is from a moving vehicle or a person walking.

So this isn't coming just from inside of a house or someone standing in front of a house.

We can send them to start in the direction if someone's moving north in a vehicle to have them head to the north of this location and start to work their way back in hopes to be able to more quickly locate the person that might have been firing those shots.

I'm going to end my part of the presentation with a couple of incidents that have occurred over the last few years.

There have been multiple, but these were some that stood out to me that have been a benefit to the 911 center.

28th and Amerson Avenue North in just in May, ShotSpotter activated showing four rounds in front of that address at 28th and Emerson.

Officers were sent there within three minutes and were able to locate and arrest one person on site.

From 19th and Elliott, ShotSpotter was activated showing four rounds at the corner.

Officers arrived, checked the area for a suspect, and a male was taken into custody.

On 33rd and 4th Avenue South, it activated showing multiple shooters with high capacity guns with 30 rounds and then two more activations.

Officers arrived to find a male running down the alley, mail was taken into custody and a firearm was recovered.

The only 911 caller, there was only one 911 caller that called in on this one.

So in all of those cases, ShotSpotter has been able to get us to a location more quickly than a call has even been able to come into the center.

This call is a little bit older, it's from a couple of years ago, but it's one that truly sticks with me in my heart as we look at the things that ShotSpotter has done for us.

From May of 2024, ShotSpotter activated notifying dispatch of several rounds on the southeast side of the sidewalk on 23rd Avenue North.

The first officer arrived on scene and requested medical for a male victim with a gunshot wound to the head.

Nearly four minutes later, is when we got the first phone call.

The only 911 caller at that point was from about a block away, reporting hearing shots and someone screaming.

There were two small children in the back of this vehicle that left the vehicle and started to wander down the street after their dad had been shot.

Had officers not been able to respond so quickly to this, we may not have located those children as quickly and easily as we had.

So in closing, ShotSpotter is just one of the tools that helps us respond faster with clearer information and with a more precise understanding of what's happening during potential gunfire support events.

It supports our 911 call taking, enhances the accuracy of our dispatching, and gives responders critical details that they wouldn't already have in those first urgent moments.

While no technology is perfect, ShotSpotter fills important gaps and helps us better protect our both our residents and our first responders.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to DC Riddle.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Chair, Vice Chair, Council members.

For the last four months.

So we have a PowerPoint.

I would really like to turn this into a discussion where we I can talk to you versus reading off something.

So I've I've taken the time to watch the previous hearings, from the last, I guess, two years or so.

It seems like a lot of the presentation has been on what the technology is.

And what I would like to talk to you today is outside of the technology, but how it fits into a violent crime ecosystem.

So this body uh implemented uh or mandated uh that MPD start a non-fatal shoot team, which took uh started in March.

Uh and at this point, uh for just over two and a half months or so.

Uh the results have been uh impressive as we continue to work on the processes to make it even better.

Part of that non-fatal shoot team is part of that same ecosystem.

It is a tool, and it's a tool of that ecosystem.

Our homicide team is part of a tool of that ecosystem.

Our violent uh violent uh VCATs, the violent criminal apprehension team is part of that ecosystem.

Our gun uh intelligence unit that's part of our ecosystem.

This is all one part.

Uh it is a tool, and that's all it is.

It is a tool to help the other parts in the ecosystem.

As far as for the non-fatal shoots, how it assists uh the department as far as response and investigations.

Uh much as the director indicated, it does uh allow the possibility of a quicker dispatch time if there is no corresponding 911 call, um, but it also allows uh for investigators to cooperate, victim, witness, and suspect statements, uh, based on locations on where they think they may have uh it taken place or where they're claiming it took place.

Um often these non-fatal shoots are walk-ins to the hospital, so we do not have a scene to work until we actually get that information.

The shot spotter information allows us to get to a closer area to preserve that scene to collect the evidence uh so those shell cases when discovered can actually be entered in denial and paint the bigger picture.

So what I want uh what I want to put forward is that shot spotter is not going to solve your violent crime, it's not what it's designed to do.

Shot spotter is a tool to fit into the ecosystem with the other parts that are in place.

So the FAST, VCAT, Homicide, GIU, our Intel, and then our community outreach partners because much as I've I've told the several members that I've had the the privilege to talk to, ShotSpotter allows us to identify parts of the area where we have the greatest concentration of gunfire.

Uh being able to be reactive and solve these cases is good.

What's more important is to be proactive to prevent those cases from from ever occurring.

Uh shot spider is a tool to help us do that.

Um, and when I say help us do that proactively means to go whether it be through enforcement or whether it be through community outreach, uh, whatever off-ramp uh these individuals would like to take, the goal is to uh have less people shot.

So I think I just talked about that.

So this is this is often a topic of discussion.

Does it increase or decrease response time?

So what what I want to put up there is just the mean data that we have.

Uh one thing that cannot, well, I say cannot, one thing that would be difficult to actually look at all the different possible outliers of what affects response time.

Uh I think that would be challenging.

So this is just something just kind of a basic to show uh the decrease or increase in the response times for the uh gunshots.

So this is the current coverage uh that's in the city of Minneapolis.

We have two zones, one north, one south.

Uh as you can see, the north and south zones have extensive coverage of where our gun violence is taking place.

Uh you'll also notice that uh southwest and also a little bit south of Wake Street.

Um there's portion of the city where that data is not being captured.

Uh keep in mind the southwest portion of that hot spot is solely relied on traditional uh measuring uh data pieces such as 911 calls, such as you know gunshots, subjects with a gun, uh subjects who are arrested with a farm.

This is not capturing any gunshot data because there is no coverage.

Now we did uh we did make an attempt uh to pull the data out of our databases.

Uh it's not set up to work that way.

I can speak to the national average that 80% of shot spider activations have no correlating 9-1-1 call.

Based on the based on the two data pools that we were able to do.

And once again, I'm not saying that these are 100% accurate.

Just the best we could do with the data that we had.

One data set was 82%, one data set was 87%.

So even if you want them with the national average, 80% of the gunshots are not being reported.

It's uh it's a that's a huge data point for us to focus when we're looking at proactive uh activities.

This is a little zoom in.

So this is uh also showing the self coverage that we currently have, and also the proposed expansion.

Uh the proposed expansion is covering uh the Southwest uh hotspot, uh, as you saw on the other map, and it's also looking to drop the coverage in the southeast to just south of Lake Street.

Right now, we're currently gathering data on the north side of Lake Street, but we are not able to gather uh the information on the south side of uh Lake Street.

Uh this expansion uh for this uh for the South uh proposed expansion would what we're estimating uh would capture an additional seven percent of the gunfire for the southern portions uh of the city.

So at this point, uh what MPD is asking and what Joni's asking for is an extension of the contract.

The contract has been expired for several months.

Sound thinking has uh floated that bill uh until this was able to get before the council.

Uh and we're also asking uh for an expansion of the current uh coverage that we have.

Um is going to fund that expansion, it comes out of E911 funds, which are from the state, so it will cost the city nothing.

Um, and so uh and nothing comes out of the general funds.

So for all the taxes that are paid for the cell phones and for the lane lines for the E 911, this is where the funds are coming from for the expansion.

Thank you.

We're gonna open the public hearing before we ask any questions.

So thank you for that presentation.

I will now open the public hearing and look at the list.

If you have not signed up to testify and wish to testify, please sign up.

And the first speaker is Jan.

Hello again, counsel.

Um, thank you for having a public hearing about this.

Um, I was not I was completely unprepared to speak on this topic when I walked in here, but then I I saw Soundthinking Inc.

and I did not know what this company was until I looked up that this was indeed Shot Spotter Inc.

Um, if you don't know, and something that I've been able to just find in publicly available published uh documents uh going back uh and all the way to 2019 is that ShotSpotter has been mired in numerous legal challenges from the ACLU, uh alleging the things that were refuted here by its representatives today.

Um but one of the things that I specifically wanted to point out is that it uh major cities across the country have discontinued its use because of the disproportionate cost.

And what is what I am now logically understanding to be basically a self-replicating machine of placing more surveillance in already over police neighborhoods.

Um cities like New York found that it was ineffective.

Chicago, um, the MacArthur Justice Center sued shot spotter specifically based on uh allegations of discrimination.

Pasadena, California, um the city that was right next to the city that I grew up in in Southern California found that ShotSpotter um alerted 75% of their alerts that received in Pasadena um turned up nothing.

That's not to say again that there were no shots fired, but that is to say that things have no attributed source found.

So there's a a lack of direct connection between the information that's being received and then the uh results of investigations at the end.

So as a person who's just walked into the situation, not knowing what the situation is, but having access to all this public data, I would say that you should not continue this contract with them.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Drew.

Thank you.

So, like Jan, I did not come prepared to speak about this, but it's pretty much the same topic that we just covered, no masked policing.

Why?

Because you can't hold masked men accountable, right?

Just like you can't hold sound thinking accountable when inevitably uh falsely put someone behind bars for a crime they didn't commit, or when inevitably, again, over police is already over police neighborhoods here in the city.

Uh you know, we already have an issue with a bunch of flock cameras being around our neighborhood, right?

We all read 1984.

We all know uh we don't want to give the tools to the state to oppress us in the future.

They say they do not record conversations, but you know, in my time searching for it, I could not find any evidence that they do not record conversations.

In fact, I found that they uh record and instantly transmit everything wirelessly.

Um, whether or not they save that data is another question, but again, they could always change their mind.

There's a lot of money in surveillance.

I do not want to give uh the billionaire class these tools in our city uh to listen to all of our conversations and again to use it in the future to oppress us.

But then again, it would be used even in the present to oppress us, right?

Again, one minute of searching, found a story of a man, Michael Williams, who spent a year in prison.

Um, the only evidence that the prosecutors used was from sound thinking, um, and then he was released and found he did not do it.

I I do not think we can take any of these chances in this city.

Again, we already have issues with over incarcerating people with wrongfully incarcerating people.

Uh, we don't need technology involved in that either.

And again, right off the bat, looking it up, it says we use AI-powered technology to do this.

AI inherits the same biases that we as a society have.

Do we really trust AI to be making decisions that could be putting people behind bars?

That could be evidence in a criminal case.

And again, if it's not good as evidence in a criminal case, what is it good for?

So I really want uh the council to consider this, vote no against it.

Um again, we should use technology where we can, but I do not think the technology is there.

I do not think it is uh going to be used in a way that is actually going to be beneficial for the people of Minneapolis.

Thank you very much.

And next up we have Rob.

Uh Rob from Ward9, I'm a public school teacher.

Uh I um just wanted to agree with both uh Jan and Drew uh on this.

Um so I can't find a lot of information about Sound Thinking Incorporated.

Uh I think uh I would love to see that on the council's uh on the on the city's website some somewhere uh so we can find out more information about sound thinking incorporated.

I do know that with shot spotter uh there's it's been widely reported that in New York and Chicago there were studies done and less than 16% uh confirmation rates based on ShotSpotter and less than one percent of that led to the recovery of a gun.

So what is it being used for?

You know, it's a lot of money and makes us feel unsafe.

Uh as a result of having a bunch of um monitoring all around the city at all times.

Um I also wanted to just state for the record at approximately 2 10, Michael Rainville took a picture of me right after I spoke out of turn.

I apologize, by the way.

Uh, but I think we can probably look back on the video, he leaned back and took a picture of me.

It made me feel very unsafe.

Um I apologize for speaking out of turn, but I just wanted you to hear the public testimony about the prior issue because uh my son had a gun held up in his face, you know, and he's two years old.

And I just want you to hear the rest of the public uh testimony on the prior topic, and I just encourage you to do that.

Also, um I'd love to discuss afterwards why you took a picture of me because that made me feel really, really unsafe.

Uh thank you, everyone.

Next up we have Alyssa.

And then I'll give last warnings to sign up to speak.

As my comrades have already pointed out here, our communities do not need more policing.

I know firsthand as a black woman born and raised on the north side.

Um, shot spotters are not always accurate.

And I'm glad that there is people here that was so quick to go look up the on the website of, you know, about what you guys are saying that the shot spotters actually do.

We need more resources in our communities, not more funding for shod spotters or keeping the contracts going.

Um there's steady black black kids coming up missing, black kids being killed in our communities.

Why are we asking for more policing in our communities?

I'd like to see more resources going to the people that are actually doing the work, like myself and our communities to do these things.

We have commutation clinics coming up.

We have lots of things that can help these kids in our communities not follow down the path of being dead or in prison.

We need those resources, not the city and the shot spotter people.

Thank you.

I think that's it.

So I'll give uh three chances to sign up.

If you wish to speak on this item, please sign up.

Please sign up.

Please sign up.

See no one else wishing to speak.

I will now close this public hearing and open up this item for discussion.

First on the agenda is Councilmember Wancy.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

So I've worked quite a bit around the shot spotter issue for several years now.

And you know, what is very clear and what was amplifying the public comment is that ShotSpotter is a technology that cities across the country have been sold by big tech as a way to help them address their public safety issues.

Yet there is actually very little data that actually suggests that it contributes to helping solve or prevent crimes.

And being good fiscal stewards means that we only spend public money on data back strategies and programs.

And it hasn't been conclusively proven, and I appreciate the anecdotal data that has been shared today, but there hasn't been substantial analytical data that has shown that the $4 million that we are being asked to spend on this, and I want to name what was shared as the financial source for this, is not reflected in the RCA.

It shows that IT, the Minneapolis Police Department, and 911 will be sharing that cost across their respective budgets.

And it mentions their operating budget, so meaning taxpayer dollars.

So I want to name that when it comes to us being as four million dollars or to approve four million dollars towards this, then we need to be able to say conclusively there is data that shows that it is going to yield reduction in gun violence.

And this is a worthy consideration since we have actually had a contract with Soundthinking for their shot spotter services since 2014.

And even with this technology, for over 12 years now, MPDs solve rates for homicides and nonfatal shootings were some of the worst in the country.

And we also know that there are cities who do not use this as a tool and have been effective at reducing gun violence in their communities.

In fact, if we just look across the river at St.

Paul, they do not have shot spotter, and they have reached 100% soft rate for homicides and have significantly lower rates of gun violence in general.

And one of the key strategies that they used to achieve this was the creation of a non-fatal task force, which also I helped lead the council in appropriating nearly $2 million towards.

And even with this implementation, we've seen having dedicated resourcing of physical bodies, investigators, working in a coordinated way, has been able to double our closure rates for nonfatal shootings.

And I absolutely believe you don't need this particular tool as shown in St.

Paul to also achieve that same result.

So again, it begs the question of, you know, is the two million dollars really giving or would it give us a good investment of return?

Also, I'm gonna know because we've had outstanding questions for this for two years, uh, this body, the council asked the city auditor to carry out an independent analysis on the efficacy of shot spotter.

And that will be published August of this year, 2026.

And it's not good governance to invest in a three-year contract without substantial and expansive data.

So I am proposing, and I'm gonna make the motion to um postpone this item by a cycle.

So this will come back before us at the June, I believe, 17 PHSE meeting.

Because we have been in conversations with OCS leadership about in uh interim approach to make sure we're maintaining some level of existing service.

Um, to have a one-year contract, from my understanding.

There was receptivity from OCS, and I was it was my understanding that you all would have come and shared that in your presentation.

But since you have not, I am going to make the uh motion to postpone this by a cycle so OCS can do the work of preparing a one-year extension, as we've discussed.

Also, I want to know that the city auditor that is actively overseeing the independent analysis of this contract recommended that in their memo too, and highlighting the fact that there are still outstanding questions and there's still so many data points that needs to be addressed and researched before making a decision like this of appropriating nearly four million dollars in the three-year uh extension with this particular tech company.

So, with that, I will ask for a second.

Second.

Thank you.

Councilmember of Tah.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

And thank you so much.

Uh DC Riddle and Director Hodney for the presentation.

Um, I think everyone knows I'm a fan of Shot Spotter, and I'm a fan of Shot Spotter because the North Side appreciates this and uses this as a tool uh to save lives.

The story that Director Hodney talked about with the man in the car with the gunshot wound to the head and um his two children who got out of the car and was wandering around was certainly one that is very familiar on the north side with with gunshots, with gun violence and calls not coming in, and shot spotter being the resource and the tool for the police to get there and for others to um know what's going on.

There's I mean, you told four or five stories, there's hundreds of stories.

The technology was introduced to Minneapolis because someone was shot and um was hiding in bushes, and no one even knew what happened, and no one was there to help this person.

And that story happens a lot.

So, in my opinion, and in folks who I've heard from from the north side who have shown up here uh time and time again to say that we want this technology, we believe that Shot Spotter is a tool that the police use to save lives and to get people help.

There's um a lot of misinformation that comes through 911.

A lot when people are in crisis, when people are trying to get help, they don't always say what is actually happening.

You say what you think you're what you think is happening, and that's not always the case.

And so we need additional resources to help us with this.

It's not that shot spotter is the end all be all.

I don't expect ShotSpotter to solve crimes.

I think you said it right, DC Riddle.

It's a tool, it's one of the things we use to help with investigations.

It's one of the things you use to, you know, to help with getting to a scene and actually knowing where it is happening.

I can recall hearing gunshots in my house, what felt like very close to my house and calling it in and then finding out that they were at the river, way far away from my house.

But because of the sound in North Minneapolis and how things radiate, sometimes things sound like they're right next to you, sometimes things sound far away.

But we're fortunate to have technology where um we know what's happening.

So I'm a supporter of this.

I'm gonna be a supporter of this.

I do not support delaying this.

I certainly think that there's an opportunity for us to learn more about this.

I don't understand why we keep having the shot spotter conversations without talking about, like for the folks who want to get rid of it.

I would really like for us to introduce an alternative to the north side to the people who do support ShotSpotter.

And this conversation keeps happening about getting rid of Shot Spotter, but nobody's talking about what we can go offer up.

And I'm not gonna put the time and work into that because I'm not gonna put the time and work into that because I support ShotSpotter, and I think ShotSpotter does uh a good job at making sure we know where this violence is happening in our communities.

And so um, yeah, I just I really would I I'm I'm really trying to understand why the the presentation and what we know Shot Spotter is doing is always on the the chopping block when like technology has to be used in these times in policing.

It's a part of how we live in the world now technology is the big piece of that I use my phone every day I use my TV I use my hair dry all the things like technology is a is a part of um like our lives now and and shot spotter is a big piece of that next up we have council member whitey thank you chair chavez uh just uh a few questions so I don't know if it's better for director or DC uh riddle um I think first question here is it specifically as it relates to I think a motion to delay here um if if either of you can speak to the understanding of if this does this contract stay in place um it looks like it's an extension through March 21st of 2029 uh have we already are we already expired in that contract and if it is if there is a motion to delay uh it looks like uh for a cycle uh would there be any lapse in service in the meantime chair council member uh the contract has been expired um sound thinking has been floating the bill uh since its expiration uh waiting for this to get before this body um after uh meeting uh with vice chair um he expressed uh and potentially rightfully so uh the concern of doing a long-term contract before the city auditor's report comes out I do not think that thinking is flawed I think that's completely fair so based on his feedback I proactively reached out to sound thinking uh sound thinking is uh more than willing to do a shorter term contract to give the city ability to to not only keep the coverage that they have there's also an option to do the expansion if this body so chooses um and also with enough time for this body uh to evaluate uh first of all uh uh what the city auditor's recommendations are and also for this body to potentially make a determination of what they are expecting uh success to look like so that when we're having future conversations uh we can actually give you the data that you're looking for to say this is effective this isn't effective but like many things uh uh the shot spotter once again that's that's a challenging matrix it is part of a ecosystem and so when we're talking about success uh you know was it the shot spotter was it the non-federal shoot team uh you know those are things that have to be taken consideration so um I'm more than than willing uh to sit down with anybody in this room to come up with what that data set looks like uh so that in the future uh we're able to give you as accurate a report as we can possibly get you because once again uh we want you to make informed decisions that are best for the city yeah thank you and that that's extremely helpful uh DC I really appreciate that uh those are are probably the right I I have so I think some continued questions about the efficacy of the shot spotter system but it sounds like that will probably come up at a later date and uh would enjoy a conversation with yourself to kind of figure out some of those uh the uh efficacy points on this and so I appreciate the the the notes there thank you thanks sir uh thank you I have a few questions DC Riddle so the the contract has expired but it's still existing correct so still if there's a shooting in one is it is still active uh chair uh uh sound thinking you know because they knew the contract was coming up uh early on I know this was this was set for agenda and it's been moved um and they have continuously agreed to continue it uh um but after feedback from vice chair uh this afternoon uh based on the as I said the city auditors report that's imminently going to be reported um I did have conversations uh with Soundthinking and once again I I do offer up that they have agreed to do a shorter term contract if this if this body uh so sees fit.

Okay.

So just to clarify, a delay of a cycle wouldn't stop this program from existing.

It would just okay.

So it still happened.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that the public understood that.

Um and then can the police departments talk about their position on the you know one year timeline?

I think that would be important.

I think one thing that we we should be navigating here, I hope, is we're being asked for a three-year extension.

There's an audit report coming out on the on the shot spotter in August.

I don't think it makes sense to say we're gonna do this for three years when we don't even know the results of the audit report.

I think a good compromise here is extending it for one year, as then we as council start analyzing what the audit report says, and I think that's why the delay is being offered today.

So I guess will the police department be bringing if this is delayed a cycle, will the police department be bringing the one year extension instead of next cycle?

Uh I don't know if the police department or do it, but somebody will chair someone will bring that forth.

If if if the council, if this body feels that the one year is more appropriate, um I've got the numbers here.

I when I talked to sound thinking, I went ahead and pulled the numbers in preparation for that question.

He said he's saying that they can do the one year contract right now.

So why would we delay it if that's the issue?

That is not process.

Uh he's saying within this cycle, we can have a one-year contract.

The police department is okay with that.

So if that that's what I'm in cue for, too, to clarify that.

If he can do that in this cycle, why would we delay it?

Uh councilmember you tell you on queue, and then we have uh city attorney.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

Yes, so I I was asking the exact clarifying question.

It in this cycle, would we be able to change this to a one-year contract instead of a three-year contract?

Chair Chavez, Councilmember Viso, thank you for the question.

Perhaps I can help clear it up a little bit here.

We just, as we were coming in to do this presentation this afternoon, got all of the final numbers to be able to do this for a one year contract, so that's why it wasn't built into this presentation.

However, we do have the numbers in front of us.

Uh DC Riddle has had conversations with Sound Thinking to be able to do this extension for one year, especially knowing that this audit report is coming out, which I believe they did just send something to perhaps Chair Chavez to let them know that they are in line with getting that done and getting that audit in in August.

Thank you, um director.

And so, yes, I'm totally fine with that.

I think it's reasonable to say let's extend this out for a year and have the one-year contract and get the audit report, but I don't understand why we would delay a cycle then and and if it's an amendment, I'm happy to bring an amendment forward to the original language, but I think we can move forward with this in a one-year contract.

City attorney.

Thank you, Chair Chavez and Council members.

From a procedural perspective here, um we're talking about something that appears to have been a negotiated contract where all the terms were agreed to with three years assumed.

So I would uh suggest that we need to allow time for the parties to go back to the table.

It sounds like sound thinking is interested in working with this uh the city.

It sounds like the MPD is more than happy to um bring forward a one-year plan, but the terms of the contract might not look the same with one year versus three years.

Um, so I would encourage the time be allowed uh for all of the parties to get back to the table, figure out what actually works from a numbers perspective um with that big but change to a material term and then bring it forward.

If that can happen in you know eight days, great, but I don't know if that's possible.

So just suggest allowing time for negotiation.

Council, council, your B time is still left on Q.

Yes, okay.

Well I I would like to see if that could happen.

Like I don't want to just assume it can't, but I understand the time to I'm I support the time to negotiate the proper contract, but I've seen this happen in a council cycle.

Are you uh are you asking?

What are you thinking?

How much time do we need for this, you think?

I can do it right now, Chair.

Through the member.

Well, it's the the terms of the contract as far as the financial terms are identical.

They have not fluctuated.

The the city attorney is saying though that we need to make sure that they agree upon the contract is what I think I'm hearing.

It's like that whatever the terms are, we gotta make sure that both parties are agreeing and back at the table.

But what I'm asking is, do we think that that can happen in eight days?

Well, before the next council meeting?

Chair.

Council course.

I don't see why not.

Uh to uh to your concern.

Um, we were current the contract for the three-year that was proposed, um, includes a uh grandfathered fee per square mile, uh, which is 33,000.

Uh the current rate is 75,000 for new contracts.

Uh, the proposed uh one-year contract that Salon thinking um uh presented to me uh while we were coming over here, maintains the $33,000 uh uh price per square mile.

Um that the 33,000 does not include any expansion.

Um the expansion was price completely separate.

So as far as the terms, um, I don't think that's that's not my arena, that's gonna be somebody else's arena.

But the uh the terms and for the finances and everything else, I don't I don't think that should be deviated.

So I don't think it would be exceedingly difficult to get this done in a timely fashion.

Thank you, DC.

So um, Chair Chavez, I guess what I'm asking here is that we allow this process to move forward.

If it doesn't work, we can always delay at that point.

If it's not solved, and we can move this forward with our recommendation.

If it's not solved by the end of this cycle, we can always delay it at that point.

But I would like us to um at least try to get that one-year contract on the docket this time around, if possible.

Councilmember Wancy.

Thank you, uh Chair Chavez.

Um, I'm standing firm on the delay, mostly because my office met with OCS leadership last Friday, and we've had several conversations.

Actually, this process is nothing different than what we did a year ago.

And maybe I don't know if this is a procedural overlook, but you cannot just quickly go and do a contract amendment.

Even going to a one-year term without having our legal team involved, finance procurement, it cannot be rushed.

And based off of that process, even OCS leadership recommended.

Actually, instead of even sending this back to staff, delay it for a cycle so that you all can go do your due diligence and follow the advice that was just shared by our city attorneys, and that's common best practice.

So that is the goal.

The goal is to still do a one-year council members should know this by now.

We can't submit amendments regarding this.

You all as MPD or the originating department, the administration will then need to provide the updates that has been clear by our city attorneys and everyone else.

So I hope everyone would know the proper process.

So legally, we can do this correctly and giving us a cycle where there's no interruption in our existing service allows us to do that.

And that's great that you all have been able to get the figures.

We're just saying go work with our experts to put that in the appropriate paperwork so that when we take this up, it's done the right way.

So that is why I'm standing firm on the one uh cycle delay.

I would have loved if you all would have been able to do this process by next cow by uh full council, but for my understanding that's not the case.

I'm sorry, I'm hearing a little bit loud whispers, so it's hard to hear myself.

Councilmember Raville, can I finish my comments?

Sorry, your whispers are a little bit loud.

So just wanted to make sure that's clarification on that piece.

And with that, I still move the item for uh delay by one cycle.

Okay.

All right, everyone, I think I have a plan.

So, one, I'll just start off by saying that I mentioned these concerns in agenda settings.

So this isn't a surprise for anybody.

Uh, it shouldn't be a surprise for staff to hear the concerns that I have about there's an audit coming in August.

I mentioned that I would support a one-year contract.

That way this body has the opportunity to look deep into the analysis.

I don't like shot spotter, I don't support the use of shot spotter, but I also want to find a compromise, which is that one-year extension, that way we can at least take an analysis and study that issue.

I think for us, is I think well, this is what I'll come at to.

One, I I will support councilmember once he's motion.

However, if staff is able to finalize this one-year agreement, I would commit to supporting getting this out of committee at full council.

However, that would require 13 votes.

And the only reason we would do that is because then you would have this one-year extension.

So if you have the ability to work on this issue and get it done by full council, I'll vote for the dispensation of this motion.

However, I hope you hear that there's probably concerns of us getting this out of committee and this conversation that we just had doesn't happen.

So what I will commit to here is supporting councilman once's motion to delay a cycle.

If US staff are able to work quickly on this one-year extension, bring it forward.

We can bring it to full council.

We'll get the 13 votes to get it out of committee and then vote on that one-year extension.

Are folks here okay with that?

Yes, but again, they were asked before this started to walk on a one-year deal.

So that's what is challenging for me.

They were asked to bring a one-year deal to the room, and they did, and now we're saying that needs a delay.

No, no, we can still bring it forward.

It was just procedurally last minute.

There's a lot of issues with a last minute whole new contract of a one-year extension.

The details still need to get figured out and finalized.

Make sure it's legally sound with their city attorneys as well.

I think here the delay for a cycle is to make sure we get legally right.

However, if staff gets it correctly done by full council, we can just walk it on with unanimous consent.

I I am totally fine with that.

I just want to say again, they were asked to walk on a one-year deal today.

There's no walking.

And they were they brought the one-year deal today.

So I did ask staff to bring it today.

That is that is what happened.

I asked them to bring it forward based on conversations we had in agenda setting, based on conversations we had with the police department as I was walking back into my car after conversations with uh city clerks.

They did mention that it was gonna be very difficult to be able to walk that on.

That being said, I think even that in itself would probably be impossible to have a contract between the last few minutes that we talked before committee and not.

So yes, so colleagues, can we just agree to figure this out?

Is that okay?

Okay.

So we'll move this uh delay to the next uh public health safety and equity committee, which is June 17th.

Can I get a second for that?

That's already been that's already been seconded.

If this is figured out by full council, please work with our office so we can then bring it on to full council and ask for unanimous consent.

Is that okay?

All right.

We yeah, all those in favor say aye.

Aye, those opposed say nay.

Any extensions?

All right, okay, that wasn't okay.

I just confirm with the oh, sorry.

Uh, this was not an attempt to circumvent the contract.

This was merely me trying to provide you data uh in the this board data in order to see uh what that would potentially look like.

This was not a negotiation, this was more of just a fact finding to provide to this body.

That was simply it.

All right, colleagues, uh Vice Chair.

Council Member Wandsley.

Thank you.

No, thank you, DC Reynolds.

Again, we've been in numerous conversations around this.

When we talked about a one-year contract, and I think this is maybe a byproduct of your relatively new to this this particular process.

But when we say walk on an item, as we've done before, there is an actual amended contract that this body would have considered that would have had one year as part of it, it would have had updated financial um numbers on there and updated terms and conditions, the things that our city attorney referenced that was not provided today, and that is what was communicated in prior meetings.

If you can provide that today, think of course there would have been agreement for that to exit out of the committee.

If that was not provided by today, we will give you all the time to get that paperwork figured out because that is standard procedure and process.

So I don't think there's any malice intent.

I think this was I don't understand.

Maybe OC, I actually don't know what yes.

What led to the absence of a walk on RCA, the actual paperwork that would have allowed us to do official consideration of a one year.

What we heard was a verbal agreement.

That's great.

That gives us the basis to do the actual, you know, paperwork the the legal component next cycle.

And I thank you for going back and working with sound thinking to get us to this place.

We just have to put this in the proper paperwork and do this the right way and then move forward.

So thank you.

And thank you also, Director.

Hot.

Alright, y'all.

I think we got through all of our items.

Correct.

All right, y'all seeing.

Well, that motion is at the next council meeting, next public health take the equity committee.

Our next discussion item is regarding a contract with community action partnership of Henry County for direct energy assistance and administration.

Yes, welcome.

Thank you, S.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Council members.

My name's Alice Frelick.

I use she and they pronouns.

I work in the health department, and I manage the sustainability team within our climate and sustainability work group.

I'm here today to talk a little bit about utility bill assistance and what that looks like moving forward.

This is a new program.

So in mid-2026, so the middle of this year, Minneapolis will fund residential utility bill pay assistance through the community action partnership of Hennepin County.

So that's not actually Hennepin County as a government entity, it's a different agency, nonprofit that administers the funds.

This initiative was made possible through allocation of funds from a 2026 budget amendment that was put forth by council member Vita.

And it's through the climate legacy funds.

So part of that residential addition that went forward through the budget process last year, a portion of that is funding this work.

So CAPHC, that community action partnership of Hennewan County plans to serve 240 households with grants of 500.

These Minneapolis residents would not otherwise be served if not for this additional effort.

So the energy assistance program to enroll in that.

It requires an application and documentation to verify wages or other income.

They look back a month at income.

There's crisis assistance available.

So if people are facing an immediate shutoff, there's uh immediate kind of assistance available for that.

And the eligibility is based on household size and gross income.

The funds are paid directly to the utility and can be split amongst multiple utilities.

And there is a QR code there that can take you to the landing page for anyone that has access to these slides and would like to utilize that QR code to look for assistance.

There's also a website.

Here's a look at the eligibility.

These incomes are set, these income thresholds are set by the state of Minnesota Department of Commerce as of May 2026.

So these could change in subsequent years.

And that is all I have for you.

I can stand for questions.

Thank you.

Councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

I don't have any questions.

I just want to say thank you so much for your steadfast work in the health department on making this program to life.

You know, we when this funding got allocated, it was really just to help with folks who were saying they were struggling with the utility bills, but that struggle with utility bills has probably multiplied 10 times since Operation Metro surge.

One of the things we saw were a lot of folks needed rental assistance and mortgage assistance, but by far there were way more folks who needed utility assistance.

And so I know the start of this is the 240 families, and I and I see this program growing.

I'm glad that the kind of uh pilot that we're starting here is going to give us an opportunity to show the impact that we can have on families, and it's not focused on one utility company, but spreading it around to where folks need it because we heard that a lot too.

It's not just light, it's not just gas, it's not just water.

It really sometimes is a combination of everything, or it's you know, a large gas bill in the winter months, and it's also the one thing that I'm most excited about is it's gonna help us identify some of these homes that need uh winterization services and lead services and all these other things because these folks are reaching out and talking to us about the utility needs, and sometimes we can tell by the bill amount that you know they need other help in those households.

So this is very exciting for me as a member of um the CAPHC board, but also as a person that's heard a lot that this is um where people need help at.

So thank you so much again for how quickly you all in the health department put this program together and worked with Cap HC to identify families and get this money out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Whiting.

Yeah, thank you, uh Chair Chavez, and also wanted to reiterate um Councilmember Vita's um comments as well.

Just a a deep uh version of thank you, a deep level of gratitude here uh for all the work that as somebody who sits on the Cap HC board.

Uh and then uh uh a note to Councilmember Vita for bringing this forward, right?

I think you know she deserves her flowers for making sure uh this came up in front of the in front of the body, and so very excited to support it.

Just a shout out here to CAPHC, kind of want to talk to kind of some of the their larger uh programs, but uh emergency assistance right coming on there with this programming, their vehicle repair work, rental assistance, water assistance, tax filing resources, and then uh minure application assistance.

And so uh you all are doing a fantastic job and continue to support uh the work of the city of Minneapolis.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Vice Chair Stevenson.

Thank you.

Thank you for presenting on this.

I just I took the QR code and was flipping through the website, and there's the weatherization referrals.

Have you had much um like uptake of those referrals and people weatherizing their homes?

Yeah, so this um this item was on the consent agenda.

So this is our approval to start the contract.

Oh, start.

Okay, okay, sorry about that.

We figured it was a good program to highlight that this body would be passing.

So thank you.

Uh Councilmember Vita, would you like to make a motion?

I would like to move this item.

On the motion to approve, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions that motion carries.

All right, colleagues.

Uh I don't remember, thank you.

Thank you.

I don't know 17 is receiving a presentation, providing background and overview of the health department's green careers exploration program and a public health pathways program.

Um but who still and before you begin without objection, Councilmember Brainville, would you like to be reflected as a yes on the previous vote?

Yes, thank you.

Alright.

Please, yes, yep.

Welcome, Husto.

That's not on there.

Um, welcome.

Church Abis, President Payne and the honorable members of this wonderful committee, Public Health and Safety Equity Committee is a pretty cool name.

My name is Justo Garcia.

I work with the Minneapolis Health Department.

I'm the manager for the Green Career Exploration Program.

We're just gonna have a slide in a little bit coming up, but I can just probably use this time to give you background information about this program.

The Green Career Exploration Program basically started within the health department and really to address uh need to inform, expose, educate, and provide certification to members of our community.

And to provide information, uh the members of our communities of this, you know, growing or emerging uh Greenfield, uh we find out that there were great opportunities that provide uh really uh what we consider livable jobs that were have the capacity to help individuals to uh accumulate or at least start uh building wealth.

Uh we prioritize uh pretty much communities that are located in areas who, you know, historically have been marginalized, this franchise.

Uh this is we are actually have two locations, um, one in North and one in South Minneapolis.

We understand that prioritizing and engaging um promotion and access of the communities for the green careers pathway.

We hope to create community ownership, economic and environmental opportunities that we leave to an equitable uh equitable climate uh for all.

So one question that comes out is what is a green career, and uh currently I know D, the Department of Economic Development is actually working, and they being uh really collecting information to come up with a definition for what are those exactly those green careers.

But for us, what we did was we uh went out and partnered with our community members and came out with our own definitions, which basically said that green careers are those that improve the uh energy use and efficiency, reduce or limit greenhouse emissions, minimize waste, pollution, support environmental community, and build adaptation for uh the climate change or challenge to the climate change.

Ideally, those are really well-point jobs, well-paying jobs, can improve the health of those who actually the communities that they are working and the workers and are equitable and inclusive and respect the rights and practice of our uh indigenous communities.

So through this program, we do work in, I will say three different pillars, which is uh education, exposure, and credentialing.

That education starts in our education institutions and community-based organizations that work with our youth.

So what we do is we bring programs and um opportunities for exposures, and also work with the industry or recognize industry curriculum, we consult and find all what is necessary to for individuals to start entering those careers.

And if the credentials uh or certificates are necessary, then what we do is we uh really put the information together and bring it to our community members.

We really look at the green careers from the equity point of view.

We, as I said in the beginning, we prioritize uh marginalized community.

We understand that uh in order to be successful and getting our youth and young adults into uh this green career, we have to make it accessible.

So we uh those are free trainings, and we actually pay them in order to remove those barriers.

Some of these trainings actually can be uh time burdensome.

They are like some of them can be from a couple from a few weeks and to even four weeks.

And so we understand it's a hard and long time to have an individual um participating in the training and not being able to at least uh be able to support uh themselves.

Uh we really when we also do we are trying, we we are trying trauma informed because we really recruit and work within our community.

We were trained the training programs that prepare individuals in our community so they in the future are the individuals that came out and trained uh members of their own community, so because most likely they will individually be trust.

Here are some examples of what the uh education institutions and community organizations that we were at exposure.

And as you can see, we work with uh some uh institutions that are you know culturally specific.

As you can see, the ANS uh Academy, the primary serve Somali, El Colegio, Copal, Sir Latino, we get uh PPL, we get uh not the little Earth, they mainly serve uh Native Americans.

So and like I said at the beginning, by strategically having a location in North and South Minneapolis um green zones, we are able to really capture the heart of our population.

Uh this is very important.

It really is.

We start as early as does elementary education, and we move all the way down to high school.

That exposure starts right there.

And all what it all takes is for an individual to um sometimes just have a positive experience to start expressing interest in one of those fields, and that's what we the environment that we aim to provide.

Um, some of our credentials uh trainings, uh, this is one of good examples in renewable or solar training.

Those are nationally recognized uh credential individuals who complete these trainings and are able to uh obtain this type of certification will have a high opportunities to um start working in this industry.

And when we look at solar, for instance, it's not just the installation, but there is a whole other aspect that individuals that go to this training are able to learn and be able to integrate into this industry.

Um this is another really good example.

This is our sustainable anchor training.

Um, and we partnered actually with another great department public work uh for this particular training, and the idea is to prepare individuals also that we can incorporate in our seasonal um uh um employment events.

Uh weatherization and this is uh we we just have a presentation of energy assistance, but this is another way that we can support our community members by helping them reduce that energy use by really um teaching them uh number one areas in which uh um those uh energy are living the space or is waste and then being able to uh they can they can understand and with that be able to reduce their energy costs.

Uh, we move into many different areas.

This is geographic information system, we have a drone pilot, all these very attractive uh training for youth and young adults that it really uh set them up for a pathway in these uh careers.

This is SOMO for numbers, this is uh 2024.

Um, I mean, we have uh more than uh 335 participants.

This was just uh um the first year actually of our climate legacy initiative location.

Um, and as you can see, the impact is 69% of those populations and those communities that we really um are uh moving to.

This is our second year, and again, we increase programming and again our participation with our targeted communities, communities is there.

And so we are really how are we advancing climate equity plan?

Really through these green careers, through educating our communities, through exposing and through building them to be part of that war force.

Uh, we are advancing our uh communities and putting them in the pathway to support our own climate initiatives.

This is just some example of the partners that we were with.

And so, questions, um, I know there's another part of the presentation too after, right?

Yeah, how about we finish that part?

And then we can maybe open up for questions.

Thank you.

Welcome.

All right, hello, council.

Uh, my name is Giselle Martinez Ca.

Oh my god.

All right, hello, council.

Uh, my name is Giselle Martinez I say.

I'm a public health specialist at the Minneapolis Health Department.

Um, I'll just be telling you all a little bit about the public health pathways program internship.

All right, so the public health pathways program internship, as I had mentioned, is an internship at the Minneapolis Health Department.

This internship is funded by the CDC Big Grant, so the public health infrastructure grant that was created in 2022 in order to mitigate um the lessening of the public health workforce in order to be able to build the public health workforce and health departments over 100 across the nation.

So we were able to be able to get this funding from FIG.

So this is a five-year grant that's from 2022 to 2027.

We were able to begin the public health pathways program in 2024, um, focusing specifically on the workforce strategy of the public health infrastructure grant.

So, with the workforce focusing on recruiting, retaining, and supporting the workforce, some short-term goals as part of that strategy, is including to increase the hiring of diverse staff and for long-term goals that includes increasing the size of the public health workforce in general.

Alright, so the public health pathways program, um, there are three main goals of the public health pathways program is to diversify the public health workforce, provide early exposure and direct experience into public health as well as provide pathways into employment for those who are interested in serving the communities of Minneapolis.

So the public health pathways program is able to offer paid opportunities to explore public health careers in addition to paying for costs for access to trainings and certifications that may be needed, as well as opportunities and exposure that is available for high school, college graduate students as well as individuals that are not currently students to be able to participate and offers opportunities to convert to a full-time position.

So MHD as a whole has been able to develop many successful relationships and hire a number of full-time employees from various career development and experience programs over the years.

We've been able to work with the CDC PHAP program, so public health associate program, AmeriCorps, university programs, and enterprise initiatives such as Urban Scholars and Step Up to bring in youth and young adults who are interested in the work of the department.

So in developing and implementing the public health career pathways program, we've worked closely with the City of Minneapolis Human Resource Department as well, and relied on existing programs such as Step Up and Urban Scholars.

So some of the PHP internship activities that we have, other than in general, just working with their supervisor, we have them attend site visits to learn about how public health is implemented in the vision mission goals and work of our Minneapolis Health Department community partners, as well as attend MHC division introduction meetings.

So essentially their meetings with our directors of the divisions to learn about how these divisions operate within the Minneapolis Health Department and how public health operates within it, as well as public health research article discussions.

So they're able to engage with one another in readings and discussions in relation to topics of public health that they're interested in, career readiness presentations to learn about general public health subject matter and public health careers.

And then finally, they also do lunch and learns at the end of the internship so that they can present their completed projects to their fellow interns, supervisors, and other MHD staff that are interested in learning about the work that they've done throughout the entirety of the internship.

We also do public health career panels, so that's a little bit outside of the internship, but just to help students learn through panels that we do at Minneapolis Public Schools as well as Minneapolis universities and colleges so that they can learn about the career pathways we have at the Minneapolis Health Department so they learn about what our staff do and then also are able to have discussions with the staff about the work that they do.

Right, so fig strategies and cohorts.

So PHP consists of several major components and strategies for various levels of engagement.

So the high-level focus areas are intended, such as expand interim recruitment beyond schools to collaborate with community organizations and pathway programs in terms of promotion for them to be able to participate and attend activities, as well as accepting applicants with equivalent experience and interest in public health, so that includes individuals that are not currently in college or pursuing college, individuals without public health experience or education, and individuals looking for a career change to public health in order to diversify the applicants that are being able to participate in the internship, as well as placing PHP interns in some of our partner sites to help build the public health capacity just outside of the Minneapolis Health Department, so across the whole city in general, and then working to create point systems with the HR hiring process so that individuals that have participated in the program have a higher point ranking system when they apply to other positions within the city of Minneapolis enterprise, and then in terms of how the cohorts are organized, we have summer employment opportunities from June to August that are focused specifically for high school students, and those are full-time, and then our other cohort in terms of how we organize it.

They're part-time year-long employment opportunities during the school months.

So from September to May, specifically focused on undergraduate graduate students as well as non-students who are currently pursuing public health or are interested in pursuing public health or related field without previous experience or education.

So following data from our first cohort in spring of 2025, all the data on the slide is from our very first cohort.

We had interns who were able to respond to a survey, and one of the first questions that we had asked that they had agreed or strongly agreed 100% that they had not known about public health than they did prior to the beginning of the internship.

Over 83% had no previous education or work experience prior to participating in the internship, and half would say that they would consider a public health career after completing the internship.

And we can also say if you look at the little chart at the very bottom, that the public health pathways program has been able to increase the amount of temporary employees in the past 10 years.

It's the second highest bar in terms of the amount of temporary staff we've had per year.

So we've been able to increase that in 2025 in the past 10 years.

And then at the end of each cohort of interns, we also do focus groups for the interns as well as the supervisors in order to engage their feedback on the participation in the program.

And we had asked about their biggest takeaways from the internship.

Interns responded how many more career options there are for me than what they had thought, how many site visits we took and learning everyone's specific skills and how they play their role in community.

I really enjoy doing hands-on work and community work, knowledge of public health, and how it impacts our community.

So the previous statements here are all examples of what and how they were able to gain that public health experience and just showing that with the work of our previous interns that they're able to gain that knowledge of public health, but also be reaffirmed of their passion for public health as well.

And that's it.

Any questions for Justo and I?

Well, one just thank you, Giselle and Houston and the entire health department for the work on all these incredible programs that really allow many people in our community to have the opportunity to try different fields of work in our green fields, have these internship opportunities that really change people's lives.

So I at least want to say thank you to the health department and to both of you who still and Shell and our staff that work part of these programs.

And I'll see if any of my colleagues have any questions or comments to begin with.

Councilmember Pita.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

I too just wanted to say thank you so much for the hard work you're uh putting into our young people.

These non-traditional careers are um, they pay a lot of money.

These are like really good jobs, and lots of times kids don't have access or even know that these type of careers exist.

So I am really proud of the work that you all are doing.

Proud of you all for continuing with this work with minimal resources.

Thank you so much.

And thanks for the impact you have on these young people's lives, too.

Their comments and their statements in these programs certainly show that they appreciate uh the ability to participate in the work that you all are doing with them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing if any of my other colleagues have comments otherwise, just again once again thank you for the work and for presenting to us on the ongoing work that's going to happen.

So we appreciate it.

Thank you.

I'll ask the clerk to receive and file that report.

And our last and final item is the report relating to the police department's participation and the federal task force.

I'll invite Deputy Chief Travis Riddle to begin that presentation.

And as we wait, this is uh was a legislative directive that this body move forward to full council relating to the Minneapolis Police Department participation in the Homeland Security Task Force.

And it was an opportunity for us to dive deeper into what those tasks for us is and more than welcome.

There we go, that's item.

You ready?

Okay.

So uh Chair, uh Vice Chair.

What I would like to discuss with you all today is uh the ask from this body uh for an explanation of MPD's involvement with the Homeland Security Task Force, and so what I would like to do is take some time and explain to you exactly what that task force looks like, the history of that task force, and also the function of that task force.

So uh for those that are not familiar, um, the Department of Homeland Security is a blanket organization.

Most of the Department of Justice is a blanket organization.

We have subcomponents uh underneath that umbrella.

So in this case, uh we have CBP, ICE, HSI.

We also have Secret Service, TSA, uh we have the Coast Guard and also FEMA.

Much as the Department of Justice is an umbrella and agency.

We have FBI, ATF, DEA, US Marshals, and also the Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S.

Attorney's Office.

So currently, um the partnerships that NPD uh shares with other federal partners are uh with ATF.

Uh, the purpose of ATF uh is to address uh violent farm offenses.

It also uh helps us with our criminal intelligence and also our Navin system.

Uh, the FBI uh is assisting us to address organized crime and fraud issues.

Uh Marshall Service uh assists us in apprehending uh violent fugitives and also with warrant service.

Um basically this allows us as a force multiplier.

Um it allows us to do more with less.

So to give you a little back history, um in 1982, the Reagan administration uh brought forth.

OCDEF which is organized crime drug enforcement task force.

Um their role uh was to address transnational narcotics organizations and also organized crime.

Um, the head component of that was Department of Justice.

Um, it consisted of uh the DOJ agencies, FBI, ATF, DEA Marshals, also state and local partners, and their sole purpose was to address the uh, like I said, the transnational uh narcotics groups.

I'll do both.

So in 2025, uh the administration uh refocused and renamed uh OCDEF and put the responsibilities of OCDEF into the Homeland Security Task Force.

Homeland Security Task Force was moved from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security with two agencies that were co-heads of that.

One was uh HSI Homeland Security Investigations, the other one was co-chaired by the FBI.

They should they share the responsibilities for the oversight on that.

The mission of the Homeland Security Task Force is not any different than it was for OCDF.

Uh, they changed the name as they transitioned the funding from OCDF to the Homeland Security Task Force.

So uh to be a participant in the Homeland Security Task Force uh does not mean um that the city or any officer of the city has entered into agreement uh with DHS.

It merely states that a compliant, in this case, the FBI.

We have an officer that works with the FBI as a task force officer.

They are working a case.

That case falls under the Homeland Security Task Force.

So when the reimbursement uh is requested, uh it's for an FBI task force officer, but it is asked for reimbursement from the Homeland Security Task Force.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Uh so colleagues, I am gonna make a motion to uh postpone this item and we'll discuss the presentation today to July 8th, just so we can continue talking about this.

There's a lot of missing parts in the presentation that was asked on the legislative directive, and just for the public part of it was if full text of any agreements or MOU between MPD and any federal agency related to the Homeland Security Task Force, the total number of MPD officers assigned to the Homeland Security Task Force related duties, the duration of their assignment, and whether a scheduled end date exists for the collaboration, how the city is monitoring to ensure compliance with the separation ordinance for MPD officers assigned to these duties, and there's a lot more.

So, what I'm just gonna ask is that we one next cycle is gonna be pretty busy.

There's gonna be a lot of public hearings.

I'm gonna be honest, it's gonna be really hard to have this uh come back before the council with this information because it's gonna be busy.

So I am asking for support to postpone this item or delay this item until the next the following two cycles from now, the public health safety and equity committee, which would be July 8th.

I believe I'll ask for support on that, but I really would urge the police department to please like read the legislative directive and come back with answers to the request because there is a lot of information, particularly how the city of Minneapolis and the police department will enforce its separation ordinance when we are entering into agreements with this Homeland Security Task Force, what the role of the police department is when our officers are being deputized by the federal government, which is a big concern for me, um, and a lot more stuff.

So at least I'll start there.

I'll pass it to my colleagues.

I assume people have questions.

I'll second that motion.

And then Councilmember Wancy seconded that motion, and I'll pass it to you, Councilmember Wansley.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

I'll be supporting this motion as well.

And I think it's important, and why I was really looking forward to the presentation today.

Um, and it was raised by residents um during the public hearing um on the first ordinance around we're literally a year from June 3rd of last year, where the Trump administration led their first tests of Minneapolis with a raid on East Lake Street.

And residents for sure passed the test.

They showed up to defend each other.

But city leaders here, MPD, Mayor Fry, they failed, absolutely failed.

They amplified the message that those who did show up was not doing so in uh intentional way.

They also named the operation as just a simple drug bust, and those out there were interfering, and um basically the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to do their job, and that those folks should have just stayed home.

And now we do know that one of the people who were targeted in that operation was subjected to immigration sentencing as a result of that rate.

And it's those type of partnerships that I think warrant this legislative directive.

Um especially most recently, and and please correct me if I'm wrong, President Payne.

Um I do know the same period or several weeks, no, like back in in March, um, you know, we heard a course or mayor go out and say we want you know ice out of here, but then 14 day 14 days later, we learned that the city entered into another contract or agreement with the Homeland Security Task Force or Homeland Security, and it was unclear as to what, especially when you know you have residents out here putting their bodies on the line, resisting the Trump administration, and are you know being attacked for it?

It was wild to see then we're entering into an obscure agreement with that same administration and for what.

And I think the legislative directive as the for what piece.

What what is this partnership being used for as it pertains to um meeting the needs and the well-being of our residents?

And it did not answer the bulk of that legislative directive.

So I think it's um appropriate for us to take the time the next, you know, several weeks to allow the administration to go back and review and provide some more robust responses so that the public in this council can have more clarity and transparency of what the f utility of these agreements, especially in this climate where we have a hostile federal government that's attacking our immigrant neighbors.

Chair Chavez raised the fact that we even had an immigrant neighbor who was detained just this morning.

Um so I think it's even more timely that we're being um very um that we're scrutinizing these type of uh agreements when we know that our immigrant neighbors are still not safe, um, and want to make sure that our agreements are not essentially uh uh helping intensify that lack of safety for those residents.

So um I'll be supporting this, and thank you for making the motion.

Council President Payton.

Uh thank you, Chair Chavez, and um I'll also be supporting this motion in um actually I I'm I want to thank you, DC Riddle, for putting some of this additional context here with this memo from the DOJ.

And I think it actually starts unpacking really what our question is with this legislative directive and the the question that we're trying to answer, which is um as Councilmember Wandsley said, you know, we are exactly to the day, one year away from an operation that was said to be strictly criminal in nature and not an immigration enforcement operation.

However, the only charges that we know of to date is an immigration charge.

Um, and it's actually really helpful to see this history of it used to be the organized crime drug enforcement task force and the project safe neighborhood that are combined.

And I think that taking these clear mission-based task forces around, you know, organized crime and things of that nature, and then conflating it with immigration enforcement, and that like the very first underlying section here is repelling the invasion of illegal immigration.

This is our concern.

We've we've by law said MPD does not do immigration enforcement, and yet we're engaging in task forces that have an explicit immigration enforcement enforcement mission.

We owe it to our community to say that we are upholding that ordinance, and it's just this does not clarify that.

This almost makes it even worse.

And so I I'm gonna make my I'm not I'm not gonna speak for the other authors of this legislative directive, but I would love to sit down with you and talk through what we're really trying to understand here because we learned of the task force through the media through one contract with the media, but we want to know what other task force contracts exist with what agencies.

It sounds like perhaps this isn't just an FBI thing that once you it seems that the federal administration is trying to consolidate all of these law enforcement agencies under one core mission, which does seem to have quite a lot of overlap with what makes it illegal to participate, which is our separation ordinance.

So I I'll invite a deeper conversation into it so that come July hopefully we can share with our community how we're upholding our separation ordinance, what controls we have in place to make sure that we are not engaging in something that is a violation of our our local law.

So that's all I wanted to add.

Councilmember Vito.

Thank you, Chair Chavez.

Thank you, DC Riddle, for um trying to present, you know, what uh you could out of this.

I know, you know, several points have been made about a time before you got here.

So I'm sure you can hear that there are questions about things that happened before you got here, and I I appreciate the council president saying that he's gonna meet with you and talk through uh some of the questions that he has.

I think that's important.

I certainly support my colleagues getting the information they want.

So I'll be supporting this today.

I just hope that um the department comes together.

I know this is uh, you know, there's a little bit of uh, you know, change is happening and and I just hope the the right people are listening and can come together and get the answers uh for for the answers to these questions.

Um, but but I also just wanted to say this this has nothing to do with you, DC Riddle.

You really have done a good job at presenting what you have the knowledge on, and I also just hope that we focus on the answers to this uh legislative directive and not about the mayor or other people, like that this doesn't become a blank thing, and it really is about us getting the information that uh council has asked for, and it doesn't become about people or um you know, uh attacks and putting staff in the middle of just getting information.

There are questions asked in a legislative directive, and there are answers owed to folks, and so I really hope it becomes that and not this uh back and forth about who did what a year ago, especially because DC Riddle wasn't here and he seems to be the person who is tasked with presenting us this information.

Awesome.

So um on the motion and for clerks, if you can help me here, is it postpone or delay?

Same thing.

Postpone uh this item until the July 8th Public Health Safety and Equity Committee that has already been seconded.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues.

That was the last item on the agenda and see note for the discussion, I'll ask the clerk to uh to no, we're good.

So you know, for their business before us, I would declare this meeting adjourned.

Um,