►
Description
Minneapolis Public Safety & Emergency Management Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
Good
more
everybody
and
welcome
to
our
regularly
scheduled
public
safety
and
emergency
management
committee
today
is
Wednesday
March
4th
2020.
My
name
is
Elounda
Cano
and
I'm,
the
council
member
and
of
the
9th
ward
and
chair
of
this
committee.
We
are
joined
by
council
members,
Jeremiah
Ellison,
councilmember,
Steve,
Fletcher,
councilmember,
Philippe,
Cunningham
and
council
member
lenay
Palmisano.
Together
we
are
a
quorum
of
this
committee
and
therefore
can
conduct
the
official
business
before
us.
Today
we
have
four
items
in
the
agenda
item
number.
One
is
a
public
comment.
A
Item
number
two
is
a
contract
with
the
University
of
Minnesota
veterinary
medical
center
for
police
canine
health
services.
Item
number:
three:
is
a
woman's
foundation
of
Minnesota
grant
for
expenses
related
to
the
testing
of
sex,
assault,
exam
kits
and
item
number
four:
is
a
discussion
item
on
a
grant
application
to
the
US
Department
of
Justice
for
2020
community
oriented
policing
services
hiring?
A
Are
there
any
questions
on
the
agenda
today?
Seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
agenda?
Please
say:
aye
aye
and
item
number.
One
is
public
comment
period.
Anybody
that's
here
from
the
community
joining
us
today
for
a
public
comment
regarding
public
safety
issues.
Please
feel
free
to
come
forward.
B
Welcome
madam
chair
committee,
members,
Chuck
torchic
I
live
in
Phillips
four
score
and
seven
weeks
ago
it
was
actually
six
and
a
half
weeks,
but
somehow
seven
sounds
better.
One
citizen
brought
forth
a
question
to
the
Minneapolis
police
conduct
oversight,
Commission
a
question
conceived
in
a
belief
in
transparency
and
dedicated
to
the
proposition
that
the
city
ought
to
do
what
it
says.
It's
going
to
do,
especially
when
it
says
that
to
the
US
Department
of
Justice.
B
That
question
was
what
happened
with
the
recommendations
on
MPD
accountability
procedures
that
came
out
of
the
office
of
Justice
programs,
implementation
committees,
first
asked
on
July
9th
2018.
That
question
has
long
endured
a
great
20
month
struggle
20
month.
Long
struggle
for
answers
ensued.
The
world
will
note
nor
long.
Remember
what
we
say
here,
but
I
likely
will
not
forget
the
absurdly
inadequate
or
more
accurately,
non-response
of
the
PCL
see
the
Minneapolis
Police
Department
the
mayor's
office
in
this
committee.
Finally,
chair
Connells,
aide,
dylan
caste
nobly
advanced
the
ultimate
end
of
this
epic
struggle.
B
B
We
now
here
are
two
highly
highly
to
resolve
that
that
20
months
effort
shall
not
have
been
in
vain
that
this
city
shall
have
a
new
birth
of
transparency
and
that
government
responses
to
legitimate
enquiries
of
the
people
by
the
people
and
for
the
people
shall
not
perish,
because
this
solitary
inquiry
seem
to
have
generated
a
city
response
of
what
the
hell
does
you
want
now
we
wish
he'd
go
away
already:
Thank
You,
councilmember,
Cano
and
mr.
Kelly
for
finally
pressuring
those
who
needed
to
be
pressured
do
I
believe
in
miracles.
B
A
No
other
people
here
for
public
comment.
We
shall
receive
and
file
this
public
comment
period
on
public
safety
issues,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
the
consent
agenda
is
items
2,
&,
3,
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
consent
agenda.
Please
say:
aye,
aye
and
now.
Item
number
4
is
a
discussion
item
on
a
grant
application
to
the
US
Department
of
Justice
for
the
2020
community
orient
oriented
policing
services
hiring
grant.
A
If
we
can,
please
have
the
staff
members
who
are
here
to
present
on
this
and
walk
us
through
this
application
feel
free
to
come
up.
I
did
want
to
note
for
the
clerk
that
this
power
console
is
not
working
for
me.
I
and
I've
had
issues
with
this
before
so
we
might
need
to
replace
it,
but
please
go
ahead
as
soon
as
you
all
are
ready.
I.
C
Can
wearing
the
castle
members
of
Turkana
good
morning,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
be
here
today
in
addressing
questions
or
concerns
regarding
this
cops
hiring
grant.
My
name
is
Giovanni
Sinha
recently
to
cover
the
special
crimes
investigated
efficient,
which
includes
domestic
violence,
sex
crimes,
traffic
enforcement,
the
UVs
and
many
other,
and
for
the
past
two
months,
I
was
asked
to
represent
the
MPD
and
his
initiative
vision.
Zero
I'll
be
working
hand
to
him
with
Ethan
from
Public
Works
I
have
learned
a
lot
and
I
really
I.
C
Do
support
and
I
believe
in
this
initiative.
So
I'm
gonna
quickly
go
over
this
and
please
I
wanna
say
that
we
welcome
any
feedback,
any
constructive
criticism
to
enhance
services
for
the
community.
The
Minneapolis
Police
Department
will
like
to
submit
a
grant
application
in
March
11
at
2022,
the
United
States
Department
of
Justice
for
$1,250,000.
This
grant
application
will
pay
this
salary
and
fringe
benefits
or
about
10
new
officers
for
about
three
years.
C
C
This
trio,
one
of
the
things
that
we're
required
to
do
a
for
if
we
are
psyched
the
grantees,
that
MPD
must
retain
all
officers
for
at
least
12
months
and
continue
to
pay
the
salary
in
the
benefits.
I
believe
that
this
is
a
great
opportunity.
Council
members,
because
the
officers
are
higher,
they
will
support
the
city
of
Minneapolis
vision,
zero.
C
They
will
support
the
vision,
zero
resolution
and
I
just
want
to
quickly
quality
submissions
here
is
resolution
that
a
quarter
is
a
commitment
to
vision,
zero,
second
million
to
life
and
equitable
services
for
all
the
people
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
end
quote
in
turn.
This
is
an
opportunity
to
develop
the
traffic
enforcement
unit
and
support
and
partner.
That's
we
want
to
do.
We
want
to
support
and
partner
with
our
vision,
Cyril
task
force.
C
We
are
aware
there
be
apples.
Police
departments
are
worried
that
the
loss
of
human
life
in
fatal
crashes
is
not
acceptable
and
we
really.
We
strongly
believe
that
we
can
play
a
part
in
this
just
want
to
quickly
rephrase
some
is
that
this
is
the
distance
that
we
received
from
the
department
of
foreign
Public
Works
during
the
crash
that
is
study
that
between
2007
and
2016,
an
average
of
11
people
died
in
86.
Additional
individuals
were
severely
injured.
C
Like
I
said,
this
is
a
great
opportunity
for
Minneapolis
to
partner
with
visions
here
a
task
force
in
the
reduction
of
traffic
fatalities.
We
can
play
a
role
in
improving
traffic
safety
here
with
this
opportunity
with
this
funding
opportunity
and
how
we're
gonna
do
is
we're
gonna
focus
in
the
five
most
and
say
trafficking,
behaviors,
DW,
driving
under
the
influence
of
alcohol,
speeding,
distracted
driving
red
light
running
and
in
safe
turning.
C
We
will
focus
based
on
this
most
common
and
safe
driving
behavior
to
have
cus
true
injuries
and
federal
accidents,
another
another,
the
data
driving
deployment.
Let
me
explain
to
you
how
we're
gonna
do
we're
just
not
gonna
deploy
I
will
and
move
into
neighborhoods
we're
gonna
be
uses,
data-driven
deployment,
resources,
we're
gonna,
look
at
the
facts,
we're
gonna
look
at
statistics
and
based
also
in
community
input
and
community
feedback.
That's
where
that's,
where
we're
going
to
deploy
the
officers
and
we
believe
that
they
offer.
C
We
believe
that
communities
are
in
the
best
position
to
tell
the
police
department
whether
they
need
us
whether
they
need
us
to
deliver
the
services.
Another
strategy
that
we'll
use
is
we
are,
we
have
put
together
an
advisory
working
group,
including
members
of
the
University
of
Minnesota.
These
are
researchers
who
have
worked
in
similar
vision,
zero
projects
in
the
city
Paul,
so
we
will
emulate
and
cut
and
use
some
of
the
best
practices.
Also
and
a
point
that
is
important.
C
In
equitable
equities
of
the
goal
equities
the
goal
of
vision,
zero,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we
deliver
it,
any
type
of
services
is
done
and
I'm
gonna
refresh
what
the
Chiefs
say
before.
When
we
develop
programs,
when
we
develop
policies,
we
want
to
put
as
much
furnace,
if
not
greater.
If
not
greater,
then
was
legal.
What
I'm,
trying
to
do
is
equity
should
be
fair
rather
than
so
much
and
what's
legal
furnace
is
important
for
any
type
of
our
programs.
C
How
are
we
going
to
do
that?
We
will
continue
to
work
in
collaboration
with
advisory
board.
We
will
continue
to
work
in
collaboration
with
communities
with
internal
and
external
organizations
and
once
again,
I
just
want
to
remind
that.
The
University
of
Minnesota
is
one
of
the
is
one
of
the
worldwide
nationwide
right
now,
working
in
similar
vision,
several
projects.
So
we
are
so
honored
that
the
coming
on
board
and
they'll
be
working
with
us.
C
That
is
our
goal.
To
do
more,
our
intention
is
to
do
more
good
than
harm
in
this
communities,
especially
when
we
know
the
injuries
and
fatalities
take
place
and
marginalized
communities.
I'm
gonna
pause
for
now,
with
Ian
going
too
fast
and
I'm
gonna
ask
director
McPherson
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
budget
and
line
items.
But
if
you
have
any
questions
out
of
here,.
D
This
is
a
new
area
for
them.
This
has
not
been
allowed
in
the
past
and
the
way
the
cops
grant
works
is
that
you
hire
ten
officers.
They
defray
up
to
125
thousand
dollars
per
officer
over
a
36
month
period
and
the
agency
is
responsible
for
the
remaining
balance
of
the
salaries
in
there.
So
if
you
look
at
the
the
spreadsheet
PowerPoint
above
you'll
see
that
the
total
amount
of
the
grant
request
is
1.2
million
dollars
went
1
million.
D
250
thousand
dollars,
and
that
would
make
the
MPD's
required
match
for
salary
and
fringe,
who
is
the
2.2
million
dollars.
So
the
second
and
third
line
on
the
spreadsheet
to
the
far
right.
If
we
were
to
make
this
into
a
traffic
unit,
which
is
the
proposal
here
one.
We
think
that
if
we
are
going
to
put
a
traffic
unit
together,
we're
leveraging
federal
dollars
to
do
that.
D
We
know
that
there
has
been
community
and
council
requests
to
do
traffic
enforcement
as
long
as
it's
been
done
done
equitably
and
based
on
behaviors,
which
is
what
we're
proposing.
So
the
costs
that
are
below
those
those
three
lines
are
the
additional
costs
that
would
be
required
to
put
together
a
program
for
traffic
safety.
D
You'll
notice
that
in
the
first
column,
to
the
left,
what
we're
assuming
is
because
of
the
way
the
cops
grant
works
in
the
hiring
time
and
end
dates
of
the
grant
itself.
We
are
assuming
that
we
would
not
have
any
reimbursable
costs
until
mid
2021,
so
the
first
column
on
here
is
actually
for
only
half
a
year
from
basically
July
1st
to
1231
and
then
the
second
and
third
year
on
this
are
full
years
and
then
the
fourth
year
is
a
half
of
year
of
expense.
D
There
is
a
requirement
on
the
cops
grant,
because
the
the
thrust
of
the
cops
grant
is
to
hire
security
Iyer
in
public
safety.
That's
basically
the
main
thrust
of
this
grant
for
the
federal
government,
and
so
the
requirement
is
that
each
agency
would
retain
those
additional
officers
for
a
12-month
period.
Those
ongoing
costs
to
do
that
would
be
approximately
1.3
million
dollars.
So
the
items
below
again,
we've
tried
to
include
all
those
tails
that
sometimes
you
know
people
tend
to
miss,
including
the
cost,
to
hire
the
workstations
squads.
D
E
E
Great
and
then,
and
then
just
and
then
just
to
be
clear
that
when
they
say
we
need
to
retain
these
officers,
they
don't
mean
these
ten.
They
mean
a
total
sworn
office,
our
staffing
level,
ten
higher
than
what
we
currently
have.
So
we
would
be
committing
basically
the
next
council
term
to
a
minimum
of
898
sworn
officers.
D
And
that
is
correct.
It's
an
FTE
count,
so,
just
and
and
just
a
couple
of
more
points
to
regarding
this,
the
this
is
our
request
is
to
apply.
This
is
to
actually
turn
the
application
in.
It
is
not
to
accept
a
grant
award,
we
have
no
way
of
knowing
if
we
would
receive
an
award
or
not.
We
know
that
there
has
not
been
a
cop's
grant
for
like
I
said
three
years,
and
so
you
know
what
they're
using
for
criteria
we
don't
know.
D
If
you
get
an
award
and
you
decide
not
to
use
it,
and
you
have
a
legitimate
reason,
I'm
comfortable
with
saying
sending
a
letter
back
and
saying
this
is
our
reason
and
it's
a
very
clear-cut
reason
on
why
we're
not
accepting
or
doing
using
the
award.
But
again,
this
is
for
the
application
process,
not
for
the
grant
acceptance.
D
In
the
process
of
preparing
it
right
now,
legal
has
already
looked
at
it.
That
was
one
of
the
concerns.
When
this
came
out,
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
weren't
requesting
anything
or
a
signature,
that
the
city
would
not
endorse,
and
so
mr.
Nelson
has
reviewed
it
or
one
of
his
people
have
reviewed
it
and
they
are
fine
with
them
at
all.
The
certifications
that
are
required.
G
D
D
We
usually
in
the
past,
have
not
tried
to
get
reimbursement
until
after
they
have
finished
their
training
and
become
sworn
officers.
That's
just
a
little
more
conservative
approach,
because
it
this
is
a
very
difficult
grant
to
administer,
and
it's
if
you
have
dropouts
and
things
like
that
or
turn
over
everything,
it's
very
difficult
to
follow.
Ten
positions,
you're,
not
really
following
ten
people
you're
following
ten
positions,
and
so
we
usually
do
wait
until
the
people
I
finish
the
training
before
we
ask
so.
G
D
D
G
G
Hell,
that's
fair!
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
so
just
going
back
to
the
4.6
million
dollars
that
we
would
then
have
to
pay
after
four
year.
Four
point
five
I
think
is
so
then,
the
12
months
after
that,
but
even
before
that,
by
accepting
this
grant,
are
we
then
committing
to
the
three
point:
five
million?
That's.
D
D
What
the
numbers
I
have
down
here
below
are
is,
if
we
put
them,
if
we
do
this
as
a
traffic
enforcement,
so
the
one
thing
we
are
committed
to
is:
if
we
the
way
we
have
to
fill
out
the
grant
application
is,
it
has
to
be
for
a
specific
program,
so
we
would
have
to
keep
them
in
a
traffic
enforcement
position
for
that
period
of
time
of
the
grant
you
can
get
them
out
of
that,
but
it's
very
difficult
to
do,
and
they
don't
always
approve
that.
So
if.
G
D
Would
be
my
suggestion
to
do
it
in
that
way?
I
have
passed
this
on
to
the
budget
department,
the
city
budget
department,
so
they're
aware
of
what
the
whole
situation
is.
But
yes,
it
would
be
a
change
request
for
the
additional
funds.
Okay,.
H
H
Safety
is
one
of
those
issues
that
constituents
and
residents
of
the
city
have
a
lot
of
opinions
on
and
so
I
am
concerned
that
we
sort
of
our
locking
ourselves
in,
or
you
know,
I
guess,
I
guess,
there's
some
wiggle
room,
but
it
feels
like
we're
potentially
locking
ourselves
into
a
budgetary
ask
outside
of
the
budgeting
process
and
there's
a
there's
a
little
bit
of
discomfort
that
I
have
with
that.
The
other
is
I.
H
Guess
you
could
say
slightly
philosophical,
which
is
that
increasing
our
sworn
officer
amount
is
another
sort
of
hot
issue
that
a
lot
of
constituents
have
a
lot
of
opinions
about,
and
so
it
feels
like
right
after
we've
had
I
mean
it's.
You
know
it's
it's
pretty
still
earlier
in
the
year
right
after
we've
had
this
debate
about
whether
to
increase
our
sworn
officer
count
or
to
keep
it
at
88
right
after
that,
we
sort
of
kind
of
have
this
way
to
just
backfill
and
say
oK
we've,
you
know
outside
of
the
the
debate.
H
We've
now
got
raised
it
bar
by
10
officers,
and
that
feels
a
little
bit,
not
intentionally.
You
know
non
transparent,
I
get
that
this
is
a
leg
of
not
speaking
to
anybody's
intention
at
all,
but
but
it
just
feels
like
not
the
best
way
to
have
that
discussion
either
and
so
I
do
get
that
you
guys
are
coming
up
against
a
deadline.
I
also
I
have
a
lot
of
faith
that
you
know.
We've
got
great
professional
staff,
you
all
know
what
you're
doing
and
so
I'm
I'm,
actually
I'm,
pretty
confident.
D
You
know
I,
think
you
bring
up
a
lot
of
good
points,
a
couple
of
things
as
the
cops
grant
the
cops
firing
grant.
As
I
said
it's
not
been
around
for
three
years
and
normally
frankly,
it's
usually
later
in
the
year,
so
it
does
become
part
of
the
budget
process
in
many
respects,
because
it's
usually
not
happening
until
May
and
June
timeframe,
so
just
kind
of
at
the
beginning.
The
fact
that
it's
coming
now
is
you
know.
Unfortunately,
we
didn't
have
anything
to
do
with
that.
That
was
just
the
whim
of
somebody.
D
You
know
at
the
federal
level,
I
I
guess
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
this
is
the
application
process,
and
so
there
is
time
for
discussion
after
the
application
process
when
some
of
the
other
information
that
we're
looking
at
right
now
can
be
discussed.
So
it
it
is
the
application
process.
It
is
not
the
acceptance
process.
I
I
know
that
there's
also
some
very
important
studies
that
are
being
embarked
upon
and
if
it
should
come
back
that
that
information
can
better
help,
inform
us
regarding
this,
and
we
need
to
disengage
with
this
grant.
We
certainly
can
we
have
the
flexibility
to
do
that
as
well,
but
I
absolutely
take
to
heart
your
your
concerns
about
the
timing
and
the
public
conversation.
H
You
know
I
and
I
think
because
of
the
timing
issues
and
just
knowing
how
much
of
a
public
discussion
that
these
types
of
issues
do
become
I.
You
know
I'd
almost
feel,
like
you
know
it
as
hard
as
it
would
be
to
pass
up
one
one
and
a
quarter
million
dollars
I
mean
since
we're
looking
at
potentially
over
a
five
year
period,
putting
in
upwards
of
seven
million
dollars
into
it
anyway,
ourselves
right,
that's
outside
of
the
1.5
and
I
almost
just
feel
like.
H
If,
if
this
is
something
that
we
needed,
you
know,
you
know,
I
think
that
that's
and
I
think
in
and
there's
a
potential
that
it
really
is
we're
doing
a
staffing
study
right
now
that
I
think
that's
really
gonna
clarify
and
help
us
make
some
decisions
come
budget
season,
but
I
almost
be
more
comfortable.
You
know
sort
of
saying
well,
the
city
will
just
pay
for
this
program.
H
If
that's,
if
we
feel
like
it's
necessary
and
we
and
and
we
won't
go
for
this
grant-
but
it's
not
quite
free
money-
the
city
is
signing
up
for
a
lot
to
put
a
lot
of
money
on
the
table.
Again,
it
seems
like
upwards
of
seven
million
over
the
over
the
next
five
years,
because
it
would
be
the
the
three
point,
the
three
point,
three
five
in
the
first
four
and
then
we'd
have
to
sort
of
deliver
the
whole
four
point.
Six
after
in
the
fifth
year
right,
no.
D
Okay,
okay,
but
the
total
that
you're
right,
the
total
commitment.
If
you
talk
for
three
years,
plus
the
the
next
year,
the
the
fourth
year,
basically
or
the
next
twelve
months
after
the
three
years,
so
it
would
really
be
four
point:
six
million
dollars
that
were
on
still
a
significant
number.
Don't
get
me
wrong,
but.
H
Okay,
okay,
sorry
I
misunderstood
down,
but
but
yeah,
but
I,
but
yeah
I'm,
just
I'm
not
fully
comfortable
having
those
two
discussions,
I
think
right
now
and
I
think
that
and
and
I
do
think,
that
the
sworn
officer
count
especially
raising
it
to
898
I.
Think
that
the
public
is
gonna,
hear
that
we're
discussing
that
and
say
well.
We
are
way
outside
of
a
transparent
process
here,
so
just
want
to
reiterate
that,
but
that's
but
but
I
think
you
all
you're.
H
A
Come
from
reflector
I.
E
D
D
D
A
G
About
that,
madam
chair,
my
flank
was
behind
my
mug,
so
she
couldn't
see
it
so
I
as
I'm
sure
you
all
know,
I
have
been
a
vocal
supporter
of
traffic
enforcement,
equitable
tram
traffic
enforcement,
because
we
do
have
very
serious
road
safety
issues
in
my
ward,
the
end
of
last
year,
in
addition
to
the
trap,
excuse
me
the
staffing
study.
We
also
establish
a
task
workgroup
around
traffic
enforcement
division,
reestablishment
around
so
there's
the
five
behaviors.
But
then
what
strategies
are
we
going
to
do?
What
kind
of
measurements
are
there
going
to
be?
G
How
are
we
truly
going
to
integrate
this
so
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
that
that
wasn't
acknowledged
while
talking
about
that
cuz?
That's
gonna
be
really
critical
work
in
helping
to
support
the
rollout
of
this
and
and
I
I
just
wanted
just
to
name
my
concerns
around
I
know
the
timing.
Wasn't
wasn't
our
fault
right,
like
I
I,
acknowledge
that
and
recognize
that,
but
I
do
have
some
discomfort
with
it
happening
outside
so
quickly
and
outside
of
a
more
transparent
process.
G
Before
we
have
the
information
that
we
need
to
make
a
truly
informed
decision,
even
if
it's
just
applying
right
like
I,
understand
that
we're
not
in
the
in
the
conversation
of
accepting
the
grant
yet.
But
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
there
are
a
couple
couple
foals
like
the
first
is
that
we
don't
have
the
tasks,
the
workgroup,
the
recommendations
back
yet,
which
are
gonna,
be
really
critical
in
helping
to
set
the
the.
G
Protective
factors
around
exasperate,
engrailed
asperities
and
traffic
enforcement,
and
so
I
I
really
would
like
for
us
to
be
able
to
go
into
this
fully
informed
about
that.
Further
around
the
staffing
study
we
don't
know
if
898
is
the
magical,
number
and
I
think
we're
kind
of
a
little
bit
operating
under
the
assumption
that
the
the
Staffies
and
the
studies
going
to
come
back
with
recommendations
of
increasing
the
amount
of
authorized
sworn
officers.
G
Actually
we
didn't
quite
have
our
ducks
in
a
row,
so
never
mind
we're
not
going
to
accept
it.
You
know
naming
so
like
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
a
response
to
any
of
those
things,
but
I
just
wanted
to
express
that.
So
let's
say
the
staffing
study
comes
back
and
is
like.
Actually,
we
don't
think
that
there
should
be
a
traffic
enforcement
division
or
the
recommendations
actually
from
the
work
group.
Is
we
actually
don't
think
it
should
be
a
division?
We
think
that
all
officers
should
be
trained
around
good
practices
of
traffic
enforcement.
D
No
councilmember,
Cunningham
I
think
I
would
agree
with
you,
except
for
the
fact
that
the
staffing
study
is
a
third
party
study.
If
it
was
an
internal
study
or
if
it
was
just
kind
of
a
I,
don't
want
to
say
whim,
but
just
kind
of
the
thought
at
the
time
type
thing.
Then
it
would
totally
agree
with
you.
But
the
fact
that
it's
a
third
party
that
comes
in
I
think
that
we
have
a
very
legitimate
reason
for
saying
we
are
being
fiscally
responsible
and
fiscally
prudent.
G
D
And
we
can
point
to
that
and
say:
that's
our
rationale.
I
think
goes
a
long
ways
to
creating
or
disabusing
the
federal
government
that
we
would
just
did
this
on
a
whim.
We
have
better
information
reporting
to
a
third
party,
and
so
I
that
to
me
is,
is
a
real,
legitimate
reason
for
going
back
at
that
point
in
time.
I
can't
address
the
elements,
did.
I
Chair
council,
Burke
Cunningham
know
your
your
points
are
well-taken,
I
I
would
just
deny,
and
you
know
it's
difficult
to,
because
it's
it's
holistic
everything
that
all
of
you
is
governance.
Leaders
are
thinking
of.
Yet
there's
still
this
very
clear
process
piece
and
then
the
outcome
piece
and
so
again,
I
stand
before
you
to
say
in
terms
of
the
process.
Piece
I
still
believe
that
there
is
the
ability
for
us
to
those
those
absolutely
that
these
studies
are
very
important.
They
will
better
help
inform
us,
but
from
a
process
piece.
It's
it's
like
deadline.
I
If
we,
you
know
we,
we
may
not
have
this
opportunity
again.
We
still
have
the
opportunity
again
if
it
comes
back
after
the
studies
are
completed,
and
we
realize
that
we
we
are
either
adequately
staffed
or
overstaffed.
We
still
have
that
ability
to
to
draw
back
and
then,
of
course,
to
any
sort
of
traffic
concerns
that
you
may
have,
or
others
may
have
in
terms
of
of
having
some
sort
of
traffic
behavior
team
out
there
again
capacity
wise
right
now,
we
just
would
not
be
able
to
fulfill
that
right
now.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
number
of
things
I'd
like
to
comment
on
about
things
that
my
colleagues
have
said.
The
first
is
about
timing
and
about
partnership.
I
think
that
we
don't
achieve
big
city
goals
in
isolation.
We
can't
be
looking
at
MPD
and
saying
they're,
not
here
at
the
perfect
time
yet,
so
we
can't
allow
them
to
go
through
with
applying
for
some
extra
money.
I
think
that
it's
too
bad
that
sequentially
and
our
legislative
calendar
this
cycle.
J
J
This
funding
would
not
start
until
next
July,
all
in
any
recommendations
that
will
come
from
this
robust
staff
direction
have
time
to
be
incorporated
or
taken
into
account
before
anything
like
this
would
even
start,
but
I
don't
believe
that
public
works
can
effectively
implement
vision,
zero
without
a
partnership
of
some
sort
with
MPD
and
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
it's
going
to
take
more
work
to
get
to
the
end
of
it.
But
what
are
our
alternatives
here?
J
I
mean
I,
get
arguments
about
police
funding
versus
investing
in
other
things
in
our
city
versus
investing
in
housing
versus
youth
investments
other
competing
priorities,
but
this
application
is
a
way
to
not
compete
against
those
other
things
and
to
be
able
to
create
not
increase
the
capacity
of
our
Police
Department
to
do
traffic
enforcement,
but
to
create
the
ability
of
our
police
department
to
do
traffic
enforcement.
We
can't
make
a
practice
of
rejecting
any
opportunity
to
acquire
potential
resources.
J
Any
time
it's
inconvenient
to
us-
and
this
is
not
a
this-
isn't
just
about
MPD-
this
is
about
any
department
in
our
city.
In
fact,
we
tell
departments
that
they
have
to
get
creative
when
they
come
to
the
budget
table,
they
have
to
get
creative
when
they
come
to
the
mayor's
office
and
say
how
are
you
going
to
contribute
to
this
next
budget?
Ask
that
you
have,
and
now
the
application
to
maybe
get
some
money
has
shown
up
on
on
a
timeline
that
we're
just
now
going
to
hold
the
police
department
to
I.
J
Think
we
should
be
saying:
hey
thanks
for
thinking
outside
the
box
here
MPD.
That's
how
I
feel
about
the
timing
of
this
in
terms
of
process.
One
example
of
budget
process
improvement
from
the
past
that
I
think
MPD
has
made.
Is
that
we're
seeing
this
now,
instead
of
just
the
acceptance
of
this,
which
has
happened
in
the
past
when
grants
come
in
from
all
departments,
not
just
MPD,
with
tales
like
this,
and
there
is
a
tale
here
and
that's
one
of
the
items
of
consideration.
This
is
a
practice
we
want
across.
J
All
departments
is
to
come
before
we
go
and
apply
for
a
grant.
This
one
came
up
kind
of
quickly.
We
have
a
really
short
timeline,
but
here's
another
example
as
to
why
this
is
an
improvement
from
the
past
retrofitting.
This
in
later
gets
messy.
Here
is
a
motion
from
the
28th
2018
budget,
deliberate
deliberations
when
councilmember
fry
and
councilmember
bender
had
to
retrofit
in
the
approval,
the
details
so
to
speak,
of
a
cop's
grant.
They
had
to
reduce
the
ongoing
appropriation
in
reg
services
for
nighttime
mobility
by
almost
half
a
million
dollars.
J
They
had
to
reduce
the
police
community
safety
liaisons
for
$68,000
and
eliminate
an
FTE
from
that
program.
Those
are
not
the
kinds
of
things
we
want
to
do.
We
want
to
be
doing
those
kinds
of
things
more
in
our
city
and
we
had
to
make
that
tough
decision
to
try
and
get
it
or
keep
the
funding
from
the
cops
grant
that
we
had
agreed
on
in
the
past.
So
I
don't
see
this
as
being
problematic.
I,
see
this
as
being
transparent
by
the
police
department.
J
F
F
So
you
know,
while
while
I
am
deeply
concerned
about
the
process,
I'm
deeply
concerned
that
you
know
when
we
hear
from
our
constituents
about
issues
one
of
the
most
potent
and
important
ones
is
Public,
Safety
and
I.
Think
on
both
sides
of
the
issue
as
it
stands
and
and
I
think
we
have
to
to
move
with
this
innovative
approach
to
see.
F
If
this
is
going
to
be
a
opportunity
for
us
to
to
increase
safety
on
our
roads
in
the
years
to
come,
it's
a
very
important
issue
in
my
community.
In
fact,
it's
probably
the
number
one
issue
that
I
hear
about
I
know
it
has
been
exacerbated
by
the
reconstruction
of
35w
and
all
of
the
other
traffic
projects
that
are
occurring
throughout
our
city
and
particularly
in
the
eighth
ward,
and
you
know
those
things
aren't
gonna
change
anytime
soon.
The
vision,
zero
study
is,
you
know,
we're
reducing
our
speed
limits.
F
How
are
we
gonna
and
enforce
that?
Without
you
know
a
dedicated
traffic
enforcement
unit
to
be
able
to
to
monitor
and
and
and
pursue
those
efforts?
At
the
same
time,
you
know
going
back
to
the
initial
presentation.
You
know
we
have
to
have
equity
in
that
process.
It
cannot
just
be
a
continuation
of
what
we
know
has
historically
and
not
just
with
MPD,
but
you
know
throughout
our
our
country,
the
targeting
of
black
and
brown
drivers.
F
K
But
what
it
really
is
about
is
about
addressing
unsafe
behaviors
and
that
isn't
always
about
citations
and
arrests.
That
that
also
comes
a
lot
into
education
and
partnership
and
I
want
to
be
very
clear
that
I
have,
in
my
conversations
with
commander
valise,
and
the
chief
is
that
I
want
this
to
be
done
in
partnership
with
our
stakeholders
and
about
data
and
about
unsafe
behaviors,
and
about
helping
to
correct
unsafe
behaviors
in
a
kind
of
a
10,000
foot
view
how
I
would
envision
this
is
that
we
would
work
with
Ethan
envision
zero.
K
They
would
identify,
perhaps
there's
a
location
that
is,
it
leads
the
beads
of
the
list
in
in
people
being
injured
or
killed,
because
of
and
and
perhaps
the
the
behavior
that's
doing
it
is
unsafe.
Turning
people
are
just
not
are
not
are
not
watching.
The
crosswalks
are
not
doing
something,
that's
causing
an
inordinate
amount
of
pedestrians
or
bicyclists
to
be
injured
or
hit,
and
that
there
isn't
anything
or
maybe
in
conjunction
with
some
design
change.
We
can
be
a
part
of
that.
K
I
would
like
from
a
position
of
legitimacy
to
come
at
that
with
our
first
phases
that
we
we
go
through
the
media
through
different
things.
Saying
we're
going
to
be
in
this
area.
Doing
this,
this
there's
unsafe
behaviors,
we
were
going
to
be
in
this
area
doing
this
followed
by
a
layer
of
warnings.
Perhaps
when
we
have
our
interactions,
we're
warning
people
about
that
and
then
utilizing
citations
or
what
people
consider
traditional
enforcement
as
really
the
the
last
layer
of
something
we
want.
F
A
I
Chair
to
our
council
members,
the
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
say
if,
if
this
were
to,
we
were
able
to
accept
this
grant
one
of
the
advantages
I
think
we
have
going
on
today.
Unlike
we
did
when
we
dissolve
the
traffic
unit
back
in
2012,
we
will
have
much
more
informed
data.
There
will
be
studies
that
come
out
I
think
we
have
a
very
in
tuned
governance
set
of
elected
officials
who
are
talking
very
much
about
equity
and
fairness,
racial
disparities.
I
We
have
data
now
that
will
help
drive
and
inform
us
in
terms
of
how
that
works
and,
of
course,
the
collaboration
between
the
Advisory
folks
and
and
again
letting
our
communities
lead
us
into
where
they
want
at
this
service
and
how
they
want
the
service
to
be
done.
So
so,
if
this
were
to
occur,
I
feel
much
better
today,
as
chief
knowing
that
what
we
had
back
in
2012
is
very
different
than
what
we
would
have
moving
forward
today
and
I.
I
E
While
we
don't
have
answers
to
that
question,
because
it's
very
important
to
me
that
whatever
we
do
moving
forward
is
not
amplifying
that
disparity
because
I'm
not
invested
I'm,
not
interested
in
investing
into
inequity,
which
is
what
the
data
currently
identifies
and
you're
absolutely
right
that
having
access
to
that
data
helps
us
figure
out
what
we
need
to
fix,
but
I
haven't
heard
yet
a
theory
about
how
do
we
fix
it?
And
and
what
does
that?
Look
like
other
than
shifting
geography,
which
is
not
a
sufficient
answer?
E
I
want
to
I
want
to
see
the
study
so
that
so
that's
one
of
the
things
that
that's
on
the
table
here.
It
is
not
just
the
staffing
study.
It
is
also
the
you
know
in
the
last
budget
cycle
which,
which
it
feels
like
the
Inc,
barely
dried
on
getting
that
budget
done.
We
came
together
as
the
13
of
us,
and
we
made
a
very
clear
compromise
with
the
mayor's
office
that
addressed
staffing
levels.
E
They
got
a
recruit
class
filled
that
was
badly
needed,
and
that
also
addressed
some
of
the
concerns
that
people
on
this
council
had
about
and
that
people
in
the
community
had
about
staffing
moving
forward
to
say
we
want
to
try
to
make
this
conversation,
make
more
sense,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
did
is
we
created
a
couple
of
processes
and
those
processes
haven't
had
a
chance
to
do
their
work.
So
we
haven't
seen
the
racial
disparity
study.
E
We
haven't
seen
the
task
force,
do
its
work
about
how
traffic
enforcement
needs
to
work
in
our
city
to
know
whether
we
need
ten
officers,
I'll
just
say.
As
a
you
know,
if
you
take
a
basic
economy
class
right,
people
will
tell
you
if
you
see
something
that's
on
sale
for
twenty
percent
off,
which
is
basically
what
we're
talking
about
here
right,
because
we
have
to
put
in
eighty
percent
of
the
money
if
it
was
something
you
were
going
to
buy
anyway,
then
that's
a
good
deal.
E
E
I
know
that
this
level
of
transparency
about
the
tails
and
the
the
budget
presentation
of
this
grant
is
better
than
a
lot
of
what
we
see
in
a
lot
of
departments
and
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
that
I
really
appreciate
I,
just
think
that
it
isn't
ready.
Yet
in
terms
of
some
processes
that
we
set
up,
that
are
not
things
I'm
willing
to
negotiate
on,
because
we
just
did
negotiate
on
them
in
December
to
get
to
a
place
that
we
have
those
processes
in
place
and
so
I.
Think
reading.
E
E
They
haven't
been
available
for
a
couple
years
because
there
was
a
lawsuit
that
held
them
up
and
the
reason
there
was
a
lawsuit
is
that
the
federal
government
tried
to
deny
funds
to
the
city
of
Los
Angeles,
based
on
their
sanctuary,
city
status
and
so
I
think
it's
a
good
moment
as
a
part
of
this
motion
to
recognize.
First
of
all
that
we
expect
the
deadlines
to
come
more
frequently,
given
that
those
lawsuits
been
resolved.
E
But,
second
of
all,
it's
important
for
us
to
affirm
that
we
are
unapologetically
a
sanctuary
city
and
that
we're
gonna
have
some
of
the
same
issues
with
the
federal
government
in
this
grant
process
that
Los,
Angeles
and
other
cities
have
had
so
I'll
move
to
return
to
staff
and
with
the
spirit
of
I,
want
you
to
continue
to
look
for
money.
I
want
you
to
continue
to
to
do
this
work
and
I
do
want
you
to
to
bring
it
back.
H
I'll
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
to
return
the
staff
and
just
say
like
I,
do
appreciate.
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
I
appreciate
when
this
is
when,
when
you
all
are
bringing
this
to
us
aside,
you
know
federal
government
deadlines
aside
and
and
I
also
appreciate,
chief
and
DC
fleurs
sort
of
the
very
you
know.
I
know
we're
not
in
the
weeds
yet,
but
the
very
high,
like
top
level
sort
of
broad
view
of
how
you
know.
Theoretically,
we
would
engage
enforcement
in
a
way
to
address
some
of
those
issues.
H
H
These
funds,
like
we
would
have
to
put
forward
80%
of
the
money
here,
and
so
so
we
are
still
talking
about
our
budget
and
these
funds
sort
of
competing
with
other
with
other
priorities
and
and
when
I
say
that
this
is
the
when
I
talk
about
timeline
and
how
this
is
coming
out.
I'm
not
opposed
to
sort
of
like
the
time.
You
know
the
timing,
for
the
sake
of
being
opposed
to
the
timing.
H
I
think
that
you
know
I
think
we
had
a
discussion
two
months
ago
about
you
have
two
and
a
half
months
ago
about
where
we
were
gonna,
put
our
priorities
and
where
we're
gonna
put
our
money.
As
councilmember
Fletcher
said,
we
invested
a
lot
of
money
into
into
making
sure
that
we
can
get
to
that
888,
because
there
were
some
projections
that
we
were
going
to
fall
well
below.
That
and
I
think
that
we
owe
it's
and
folks
does
not
say
all
right.
H
We've
put
in
our
investment
to
get
to
the
888
and
now
we're
sort
of
just
very
quickly,
raising
the
staffing
levels,
and
so
I
think
that
that
my
issue
is
not
timing.
For
timing
sake,
but
you
know
again
the
transparency
issue
and
how
we're
having
this
discussion
with
community
I
think
is
really
important.
But
with
that
I'll
end,
my
comments
and
I
will
be
supporting
the
motion
before
us.
A
J
You,
madam
chair
returning
to
staff,
something
like
this
would
be
highly
unusual.
I,
think
and
I
think
that
this
is
unfortunately
an
attempt
to
just
kill
it
in
committee
so
that
it
can't
go
and
get
weighed
in
on
by
all
council
members.
Clearly
returning
it
to
committee
is
making
that
decision
for
the
entire
council
to
say
no,
absolutely
not.
We
won't
and
we're
not
willing
to
bring
it
through
the
rest
of
the
process.
J
So
I
would
urge
my
colleagues
to
allow
this
to
fail
in
committee,
but
to
still
go
to
full
council
so
that
we
can
both
have
the
public
presentation
of
the
vision,
zero
study
and
where
we're
at
in
it
next
week
and
then
be
mindful
of
that,
as
we
get
to
vote
as
a
full
council.
Next
Friday
so
I
urge
my
colleagues
to
not
support
this
motion
to
kill
it.
F
The
Minneapolis
police
department,
firefighters,
all
of
us,
are
first
responders
in
in
times
of
crisis,
we
have
a
perception
of
a
lack
of
Public
Safety
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
and
and
rather
whether
that
is
real
or
not.
It
is
certainly
a
perception
we
have
what
I
think
is
undue
pressure
from
our
state
legislators
to
to
provide
more
public
safety
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
to
the
extent
that
they
have
recently
introduced
a
bill
to
require
us
to
spend
our.
F
I
D
D
G
Okay,
that's
what
yeah
that's
what
I
was
I,
always
wonder:
cuz
I
was
like
usually
it's
a
lot
lower
than
that.
So
no,
that's!
Okay!
Just
because
we're
talking
about
staffing
levels
right
inside
just
like
it's,
it's
helpful
to
know
kind
of.
Do
we
even
need
to
increase
the
authorized
amount
if,
if
we're
gonna
be
within
the
888
with
attrition-
and
you
know
the
recruit
class,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
also
get
an
understanding
of
that.
So
could
you
come
to
the
microphone
yeah.
D
D
E
Recollection
is
that
it
gets
confusing
because
we
separate
out
the
recruit
class
now
from
the
door.
So
it
kind
of
depends
on.
Are
we
talking
about
total
sworn
officers
or
are
we
talking
about
who's
in
the
field
and
those
numbers
offing
a
confusing?
But
my
recollection
is
that
we
were
going
to
overshoot
888
by
late
December
when
that,
when
that
December
class,
that
we
were
gonna
briefly
sort
of
peak
in
staffing
in
December.
A
Writing
seeing
no
other
questions
or
comments,
we
have
a
motion
before
us.
Maybe
I
come
summer
Fletcher
to
move
this
back
to
send
this
back
to
the
staff,
all
those
in
favor
of
that
motion,
please
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
against
we
say,
nay,
all
right,
so
that
moving
vote.
All
those
abstaining,
all
those
in
but
looks
like
our
motion
moves
forward.
A
J
If
I
may,
madam
sure,
I
just
have
a
procedural
question
about
that
for
a
city
clerk
on
a
motion
like
this,
which
would
be
to
return
to
staff,
a
three
three
vote
fails.
Was
it
three
three?
Was
it
to
four
I
think
we
should
have
a
roll
call
vote
and
then
I'm
curious
to
hear
from
our
city
clerk
if
it?
If
it
is
three
three
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
city
clerk
as
to
what
happens
with
X,
my
understanding
as
that
fails
mm-hmm.
A
Yes,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
do
a
roll
call,
because
I
I
heard
three
voices
for
sure
so
we'll
take
a
vote
again
on
this
motion
to
send
back
to
the
staff,
so
all
those
in
favor
of
oh
I'm.
Sorry,
yes,
thank
you.
Mm-Hmm.